I really can't fathom how she came up with that phrase.
The same what I did, ignorance.
Before reading your post, I thought blood libel mean someone took some action that directly led to the death of someone else. As an example (only as an example, don't go rampant on me over this): Assange released information that directly lead warlords in Iraq to the location of their enemies which the warlords then promptly killed. Without Assange's release of the information, they wouldn't have known the location of their enemies so they couldn't have killed them, at least not yet.
That would be my interpretation of what she meant when she said it.
Clearly, by the definition you posted, that isn't the case.
However, I would say that no one in the country except the few people who actually have seen the term before she used it would think any different than I did.
She clearly used the wrong words for what she meant, however its not too difficult to figure out what she meant based on the context of her statement, so the end result is that no one with half a clue would think she meant ritualistic human sacrifices. The only people that WOULD think that she meant that are people who have WAY more knowledge than actual intelligence and have no ability to take context into consideration.
Perhaps you should consider the context rather than a strict definition that hardly anybody anywhere is aware of. Language changes, and while Palin most certainly is a freaking idiot, you aren't ranking much higher on the intelligence scale by showing that you're incapable of using context to determine meaning. If it was a Rabi saying it, your interpretation may be correct, but in this case it pretty clearly isn't so you don't really have an excuse.
As someone who lived in Florida, in a mobile home park... right across the street from a plant that made 'manufactured homes'... when a hurricane or in our case a tornado comes through, they both look exactly the same afterwords, randomly thrown around insulation and aluminum.
They are the same thing, the difference is one they take the wheels off of and set it on the ground, the other they leave them there and set it on blocks. They both can go from trash to mansions, but they are still built like mobile homes and the end result is that anything you can easily truck down the road in preassembled pieces turns out is also light and weakly manufactured enough for high winds to rip it to shreds.
If you sit a mobile home on the ground so the wind can't get under it, it'll hold up just as long as a 'manufactured home'. Likewise, put a 'manufactured home' on blocks off the ground with siding around it so the wind can pick it up and it'll die as fast as a 'mobile home'
The only difference between the two is they leave the trailer on blocks, which at least means you can put the axels back on it and move it relatively easy.
Their both still mobile homes, even if you want to pretend they aren't. Neither hold up much better than your typical RV/Travel Trailer and are far less mobile however far more spacious (generally).
Yep, that option was called 'Firefox' for a long time. The fact that its no longer 'Firefox' is what the complaint is.
Remember Firefox started life as the clean browser only component of the Seamonkey package.
Seamonkey went away, Firefox took its place and doesn't look like its too far away from being Seamonkey again, just waitting for Thunderbird to turn into a firefox plugin... oh wait... nevermind.
If he's company expects him to be on call 24/7, than he is on call 24/7.
If he doesn't like it, he can work somewhere else.
He would be retarded to do what you say as it would result in a termination for cause (insubordination) rather than 'i quit'. Which do you think looks better when you go to get a new job.
And if you think telling them you got fired because you wouldn't answer your cell phone they provided you is a good idea, I suspect you're unemployed for many reasons, insubordination being somewhere near the top of the list.
Yes, and all they have to do is find about 500 places like that and they can get back on budget and actually pay the bills for services they are using.
A penny saved is a penny earned.
Anyone with any business sense what so ever knows that saving on ALL the little places is what matters. Its often far easier to save a ship from sinking if its got one big hole than it is if its filled with a lot of little holes.
In short, ignoring this amount would be completely ignorant since the amount it will save is much large than some entire projects the state does.
Yea, cause 10 DVM clerks each with there own phone that gets used for work once or twice a week is always more cost effective than 2 or 3 shared lines.
You can easily and cheaply share land lines, let me see you do that with personal cell phones please.
He can't add it to your employment requirements later without you agreeing to it.
Uhm, yes he can.
You can also not work there any longer if you don't like the new terms.
Contrary to what you think, you do not get to tell the employer how to run the business, and like wise, they can't force you to work for them. Just because you have a right to work doesn't mean anyone is required to employe you.
Okay, so they buy a license for 'web browser plugin to support h264' instead of firefox.
Its just another plugin, its own separate product that other browsers are welcome to use as well.
This isn't rocket science really, its not even new. Hell, on my systems all it has to do is allow the use of any native video codec and it'll work. I already HAVE NATIVE h.264 encoders with my OS or as products I bought on the side.
I was going to add support for H.264 encoding and decoding to one of my projects, but I simply can't afford the license fees or to charge the users for each copy.
You could always provide a simple way to plugin to an existing h.264 library that the user already has a license for, then you don't have to worry about licensing or patents, you just have to pick some h.264 implementation to write a wrapper/plugin for.
Of course, if you designed your software properly, you already support allowing users to select the codec they want to use through some sort of api, hopefully the platform native API.
Basically, you're coming up with shitty excuses for why your software doesn't provide a feature.
Just be honest, you don't support h.264 because it doesn't fit into the agenda you're trying to push with your software.
Developers are to blame when they use such piss poor excuses as yours.
Both of my primary OSes support h.264 across every video application I use... because they use the native OS API for video encoding/decoding and I have a license to use h.264, regardless of what the h264 status is in the software install. I have no legal or financial concerns.
None of the developers of the software I use have to worry about my license to use h264
Your excuse just shows you're not a very experienced developer, not an actual reason that you can't use h.264 with your application.
Also, turns out... reinventing the wheel is another one of those things that experience will teach is you almost invariably a bad idea unless you're willing to loose a lot of money in research and design to get it up to par with whats already available, ESPECIALLY when doing it on multiple platforms/OSes.
From my perspective, and most of the rest of the world, the 100% patent encumbered codec is useful right now, versus the 'free and open' solution isn't.
Anyone that I want to communicate with is going to have a way to play h.264, not true with WebM. I know they'll be able to play it even on their portable devices.
Please name one advantage WebM provides me that h.264 does not.
'free and open' is neither a disadvantage or an advantage for me. The cost of the license fee for h.264 in the products I use is so small and infinitesimal that I just simply do not care one bit.
They can't go back and change the license on products already being sold, so nothing I have or use already will not be effected even if they decide to completely change the rules.
So its not 'open' by your definition of the word. By mine it is, as anyone can use it without regards to what they are using it for. The playing field is level, so its open enough for me. Of course, most people don't even know that as they aren't affected by any sort of 'open versus closed source' politics like 'slashdotters with a cause' are.
I fail to SEE A PROBLEM, as does pretty much everyone else. You're all uppity and excited about something that will literally have no effect what so ever one 99.999999% of the population.
You probably spent more in time and effort to make your post than a normal person will ever pay in h.264 license fees directly or indirectly, I know I most certainly have.
WebM advantage right now: Free and Open, can be implemented safely in OSS software. WebM disadvantages right now: Lack of hardware support. Lack of software support. Lack of commercial support.
h.264 advantage right now: Virtually ubiquitous hardware and software support. Used by many commercial entities for production work. Massive amounts of content AND content creation gear already made to work with h.264 h.264 disadvantages right now: Patented. Royalties required in many uses cases (not all). Does not fit the 'Stallman definition of Open', as such can not be safely (from a legal perspective) implemented by open source software or hardware.
What they have the same: Both codecs look pretty much the same for all intents and purposes from the user perspective of video quality and bandwidth, neither is 'clearly the winner' in this category though both have individual strengths and weaknesses.
So, the industry could flip around and use an entirely different codec because 'its free and open' or they could just keep going like there were using. Pay the expense to retool and relearn and produce entirely new software/hardware designs... or just pay a thousands of a percent of your product cost in license fees and let someone define the standard...
H.264 license fees are just so low that the inertia it has surpasses any perceived savings with going with a open solution at this time. Perhaps the license board will do something silly in the future that will make h.264 not look as good, but its just silly to run off and spend the money to replace what currently works fine with something that could eventually work fine if everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Too bad everyone is already on a comfortable bandwagon.
So really the argument turns into: One is better than the other because it can be used in open source.
Reality: No outside of your cult gives a shit if it can't be used in OSS, whats worse, half the people who love OSS and live by it... would rather use h.264 now than wait for WebM to become ubiquitous.
Second Reality: Best Demo Ever, also simply releasing close source implementations for a small fee to go along with the OSS you can completely avoid any legal concerns so its really just a matter of principal because of something that MIGHT possibly happen IF the license board decides to cut off its own nose to spite its face.
I guess what I'm trying to say is... your 'reason' makes a really silly argument if you've got any sort of perspective at all.
Why don't we just brand their heads with something like 'Molester' or the like, it would be far easier on everyone involved.
Children would know to watch out for them.
Adults would know if there happens to be a molester watching the kids in the playground.
Its more visible than a red M.
Probably would be easier on the offender since its a safe bet there are daycares, schools and tons of other 'red zones' scattered all over any urban area that you'd be very hard pressed to avoid without constantly referencing a map or just staying at home.
Hell, just keep them in jail, that really is probably the easiest solution on everyone including the criminals.
Yea, its not like the money Mozilla makes from google and other advertising that they couldn't spend a little bit of that on a license for the codec or anything.
Don't confuse personal agenda and bullshit about why someone is/isn't doing something with reality.
H.264 is dirt cheap, they most certainly could work out a licensing deal to suit Mozilla.
There is no doubt in my mind that doing so would be about 6 billion orders of magnitude more productive than most of their other retarded projects. Tell the CEO of your fanboy club to cut his bonus this year and you'll pay for h.264 licensing for the next 20 years.
Yes, its a mob mentality, we get it, we realize EXACTLY what it is, a bunch of pansies with computer courage who like to terrorize anyone who doesn't agree with them.
'Anonymous' is a name for a bunch of pussies in mommies basement pretending to be thugs because they can send packets from someone elses server because they downloaded some script where someone else did all the work.
Anonymous is a perfect example of WHY we don't allow our world to be ruled by the Mob mentality. They are a perfect example of what civilization is not.
the same types of precautions as the plan that makes Oxycodone.
Or any brewery.
The only value to pot is that its hard to get due to the legality. When you make it legal and easy to get, the high profit drug trade starts to fall apart.
There is far less reason to steal it if you can just go buy it, or if any potential customer you are going to sell it too can just go buy it from the store.
Drugs are only expensive/valuable/worth stealing because the government makes them rare.
Physical dependence is bullshit. Nobody (except quite possibly a TINY PERCENTAGE of users) develops physical dependence to marijuana.
You're in denial and ignorant.
There are most certainly a physical dependence, it generally isn't too noticeable due to the subdued effects and the time it takes to fade away. Its well documented and visible to pretty much anyone watching a pothead go without pot. It pretty much looks like the same as nicotine withdrawal, though much more subdued. Its pretty clear however that irritability is most certainly a symptom of withdrawal from pot.
As for the rest, I'll agree with as I've seen the studies myself.
It does actually black out, but for a much shorter period of time during a transition between flight attitudes. Its less than 30 seconds however it does still loose communications during the worst parts of reentry, even with a relay off its tail.
And you're ignoring the fact that farming for more than a few years in a row in most places completely depletes the soil and growth stops.
And you're ignoring fertilizers which replenish the soil.
And growing plants 'in water' requires you to saturate the water with nutrients that are absorbed into the plant.
Just because you don't understand how the soil gets replenished, doesn't mean its not.
And for the record, farmers have on many occasions fucked themselves into unfarmable land by raping it year after year rather than allowing it to recover and rotating crops.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats because they weren't working together before the suit.
Wikileaks and Manning did collaborate before any legal proceedings took place at all, which changes things significantly.
The same what I did, ignorance.
Before reading your post, I thought blood libel mean someone took some action that directly led to the death of someone else. As an example (only as an example, don't go rampant on me over this): Assange released information that directly lead warlords in Iraq to the location of their enemies which the warlords then promptly killed. Without Assange's release of the information, they wouldn't have known the location of their enemies so they couldn't have killed them, at least not yet.
That would be my interpretation of what she meant when she said it.
Clearly, by the definition you posted, that isn't the case.
However, I would say that no one in the country except the few people who actually have seen the term before she used it would think any different than I did.
She clearly used the wrong words for what she meant, however its not too difficult to figure out what she meant based on the context of her statement, so the end result is that no one with half a clue would think she meant ritualistic human sacrifices. The only people that WOULD think that she meant that are people who have WAY more knowledge than actual intelligence and have no ability to take context into consideration.
Perhaps you should consider the context rather than a strict definition that hardly anybody anywhere is aware of. Language changes, and while Palin most certainly is a freaking idiot, you aren't ranking much higher on the intelligence scale by showing that you're incapable of using context to determine meaning. If it was a Rabi saying it, your interpretation may be correct, but in this case it pretty clearly isn't so you don't really have an excuse.
As someone who lived in Florida, in a mobile home park ... right across the street from a plant that made 'manufactured homes' ... when a hurricane or in our case a tornado comes through, they both look exactly the same afterwords, randomly thrown around insulation and aluminum.
They are the same thing, the difference is one they take the wheels off of and set it on the ground, the other they leave them there and set it on blocks. They both can go from trash to mansions, but they are still built like mobile homes and the end result is that anything you can easily truck down the road in preassembled pieces turns out is also light and weakly manufactured enough for high winds to rip it to shreds.
If you sit a mobile home on the ground so the wind can't get under it, it'll hold up just as long as a 'manufactured home'. Likewise, put a 'manufactured home' on blocks off the ground with siding around it so the wind can pick it up and it'll die as fast as a 'mobile home'
The only difference between the two is they leave the trailer on blocks, which at least means you can put the axels back on it and move it relatively easy.
Their both still mobile homes, even if you want to pretend they aren't. Neither hold up much better than your typical RV/Travel Trailer and are far less mobile however far more spacious (generally).
You should probably upgrade because Chrome has had a status bar (its auto-hide when not active/empty) since I started using it god knows how long ago.
Yep, that option was called 'Firefox' for a long time. The fact that its no longer 'Firefox' is what the complaint is.
Remember Firefox started life as the clean browser only component of the Seamonkey package.
Seamonkey went away, Firefox took its place and doesn't look like its too far away from being Seamonkey again, just waitting for Thunderbird to turn into a firefox plugin ... oh wait ... nevermind.
You're post screams:
Im entitled, give me everything now!
And you sealed your point clearly the instant you brought up tenure.
If you think tenure is a good idea, you are, and I don't say this lightly, a fucking moron.
Ask me that when you can walk into a McDonalds and not find a now hiring sign.
They can find a job, they just don't want to.
Give the option of sitting at home and getting paid versus working and getting paid roughly the same thing, which would you choose?
To all of those the response will simply be:
Okay, you're fired.
If he's company expects him to be on call 24/7, than he is on call 24/7.
If he doesn't like it, he can work somewhere else.
He would be retarded to do what you say as it would result in a termination for cause (insubordination) rather than 'i quit'. Which do you think looks better when you go to get a new job.
And if you think telling them you got fired because you wouldn't answer your cell phone they provided you is a good idea, I suspect you're unemployed for many reasons, insubordination being somewhere near the top of the list.
Yes, and all they have to do is find about 500 places like that and they can get back on budget and actually pay the bills for services they are using.
A penny saved is a penny earned.
Anyone with any business sense what so ever knows that saving on ALL the little places is what matters. Its often far easier to save a ship from sinking if its got one big hole than it is if its filled with a lot of little holes.
In short, ignoring this amount would be completely ignorant since the amount it will save is much large than some entire projects the state does.
Yea, cause 10 DVM clerks each with there own phone that gets used for work once or twice a week is always more cost effective than 2 or 3 shared lines.
You can easily and cheaply share land lines, let me see you do that with personal cell phones please.
Uhm, yes he can.
You can also not work there any longer if you don't like the new terms.
Contrary to what you think, you do not get to tell the employer how to run the business, and like wise, they can't force you to work for them. Just because you have a right to work doesn't mean anyone is required to employe you.
Okay, so they buy a license for 'web browser plugin to support h264' instead of firefox.
Its just another plugin, its own separate product that other browsers are welcome to use as well.
This isn't rocket science really, its not even new. Hell, on my systems all it has to do is allow the use of any native video codec and it'll work. I already HAVE NATIVE h.264 encoders with my OS or as products I bought on the side.
You could always provide a simple way to plugin to an existing h.264 library that the user already has a license for, then you don't have to worry about licensing or patents, you just have to pick some h.264 implementation to write a wrapper/plugin for.
Of course, if you designed your software properly, you already support allowing users to select the codec they want to use through some sort of api, hopefully the platform native API.
Basically, you're coming up with shitty excuses for why your software doesn't provide a feature.
Just be honest, you don't support h.264 because it doesn't fit into the agenda you're trying to push with your software.
Developers are to blame when they use such piss poor excuses as yours.
Both of my primary OSes support h.264 across every video application I use ... because they use the native OS API for video encoding/decoding and I have a license to use h.264, regardless of what the h264 status is in the software install. I have no legal or financial concerns.
None of the developers of the software I use have to worry about my license to use h264
Your excuse just shows you're not a very experienced developer, not an actual reason that you can't use h.264 with your application.
Also, turns out ... reinventing the wheel is another one of those things that experience will teach is you almost invariably a bad idea unless you're willing to loose a lot of money in research and design to get it up to par with whats already available, ESPECIALLY when doing it on multiple platforms/OSes.
See, heres the problem:
From my perspective, and most of the rest of the world, the 100% patent encumbered codec is useful right now, versus the 'free and open' solution isn't.
Anyone that I want to communicate with is going to have a way to play h.264, not true with WebM. I know they'll be able to play it even on their portable devices.
Please name one advantage WebM provides me that h.264 does not.
'free and open' is neither a disadvantage or an advantage for me. The cost of the license fee for h.264 in the products I use is so small and infinitesimal that I just simply do not care one bit.
They can't go back and change the license on products already being sold, so nothing I have or use already will not be effected even if they decide to completely change the rules.
So its not 'open' by your definition of the word. By mine it is, as anyone can use it without regards to what they are using it for. The playing field is level, so its open enough for me. Of course, most people don't even know that as they aren't affected by any sort of 'open versus closed source' politics like 'slashdotters with a cause' are.
I fail to SEE A PROBLEM, as does pretty much everyone else. You're all uppity and excited about something that will literally have no effect what so ever one 99.999999% of the population.
You probably spent more in time and effort to make your post than a normal person will ever pay in h.264 license fees directly or indirectly, I know I most certainly have.
WebM advantage right now: Free and Open, can be implemented safely in OSS software.
WebM disadvantages right now: Lack of hardware support. Lack of software support. Lack of commercial support.
h.264 advantage right now: Virtually ubiquitous hardware and software support. Used by many commercial entities for production work. Massive amounts of content AND content creation gear already made to work with h.264
h.264 disadvantages right now: Patented. Royalties required in many uses cases (not all). Does not fit the 'Stallman definition of Open', as such can not be safely (from a legal perspective) implemented by open source software or hardware.
What they have the same: Both codecs look pretty much the same for all intents and purposes from the user perspective of video quality and bandwidth, neither is 'clearly the winner' in this category though both have individual strengths and weaknesses.
So, the industry could flip around and use an entirely different codec because 'its free and open' or they could just keep going like there were using. Pay the expense to retool and relearn and produce entirely new software/hardware designs ... or just pay a thousands of a percent of your product cost in license fees and let someone define the standard ...
H.264 license fees are just so low that the inertia it has surpasses any perceived savings with going with a open solution at this time. Perhaps the license board will do something silly in the future that will make h.264 not look as good, but its just silly to run off and spend the money to replace what currently works fine with something that could eventually work fine if everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Too bad everyone is already on a comfortable bandwagon.
So really the argument turns into: One is better than the other because it can be used in open source.
Reality: No outside of your cult gives a shit if it can't be used in OSS, whats worse, half the people who love OSS and live by it ... would rather use h.264 now than wait for WebM to become ubiquitous.
Second Reality: Best Demo Ever, also simply releasing close source implementations for a small fee to go along with the OSS you can completely avoid any legal concerns so its really just a matter of principal because of something that MIGHT possibly happen IF the license board decides to cut off its own nose to spite its face.
I guess what I'm trying to say is ... your 'reason' makes a really silly argument if you've got any sort of perspective at all.
Why don't we just brand their heads with something like 'Molester' or the like, it would be far easier on everyone involved.
Children would know to watch out for them.
Adults would know if there happens to be a molester watching the kids in the playground.
Its more visible than a red M.
Probably would be easier on the offender since its a safe bet there are daycares, schools and tons of other 'red zones' scattered all over any urban area that you'd be very hard pressed to avoid without constantly referencing a map or just staying at home.
Hell, just keep them in jail, that really is probably the easiest solution on everyone including the criminals.
Yea, its not like the money Mozilla makes from google and other advertising that they couldn't spend a little bit of that on a license for the codec or anything.
Don't confuse personal agenda and bullshit about why someone is/isn't doing something with reality.
H.264 is dirt cheap, they most certainly could work out a licensing deal to suit Mozilla.
There is no doubt in my mind that doing so would be about 6 billion orders of magnitude more productive than most of their other retarded projects. Tell the CEO of your fanboy club to cut his bonus this year and you'll pay for h.264 licensing for the next 20 years.
Riots and revolts are rarely the only way to solve the corruption problem, and they are almost certainly never the best way.
Its actually more likely that an illegal means would have been the best solution, but you wouldn't want that would you?
Have you read very many of these cables that were leaked?
The US does some embarrassing things, but lets face it the cables made it clear we're certainly not the most embarrassing or hypocritical.
Yes, its a mob mentality, we get it, we realize EXACTLY what it is, a bunch of pansies with computer courage who like to terrorize anyone who doesn't agree with them.
'Anonymous' is a name for a bunch of pussies in mommies basement pretending to be thugs because they can send packets from someone elses server because they downloaded some script where someone else did all the work.
Anonymous is a perfect example of WHY we don't allow our world to be ruled by the Mob mentality. They are a perfect example of what civilization is not.
Or any brewery.
The only value to pot is that its hard to get due to the legality. When you make it legal and easy to get, the high profit drug trade starts to fall apart.
There is far less reason to steal it if you can just go buy it, or if any potential customer you are going to sell it too can just go buy it from the store.
Drugs are only expensive/valuable/worth stealing because the government makes them rare.
You're in denial and ignorant.
There are most certainly a physical dependence, it generally isn't too noticeable due to the subdued effects and the time it takes to fade away. Its well documented and visible to pretty much anyone watching a pothead go without pot. It pretty much looks like the same as nicotine withdrawal, though much more subdued. Its pretty clear however that irritability is most certainly a symptom of withdrawal from pot.
As for the rest, I'll agree with as I've seen the studies myself.
Theres got to be some weird new addition that makes this 'never done before'
I can assure you, radio controlled 'drones' have been flying over cities doing survey work for years.
Maybe this is the largest unmanned craft that they've asked for clearance over populated areas or something but its certainly not the first.
It does actually black out, but for a much shorter period of time during a transition between flight attitudes. Its less than 30 seconds however it does still loose communications during the worst parts of reentry, even with a relay off its tail.
And you're ignoring the fact that farming for more than a few years in a row in most places completely depletes the soil and growth stops.
And you're ignoring fertilizers which replenish the soil.
And growing plants 'in water' requires you to saturate the water with nutrients that are absorbed into the plant.
Just because you don't understand how the soil gets replenished, doesn't mean its not.
And for the record, farmers have on many occasions fucked themselves into unfarmable land by raping it year after year rather than allowing it to recover and rotating crops.
Yea, you should completely ignore intent when thinking about these sorts of things.