Clearly not every device is bad for customers if what he/she said was true, as devices exist which don't require DRM to run, or will minimise any interoperability issues with DRM'd media.
Then don't go to that site. It's that simple. If you like the content, disable your AdBlocker. It costs them money to serve the content which you clearly appreciate.
People probably also complained in a similar fashion when talkies first appeared, and then when colour was introduced. Each one added more ways of immersing the audience, which is good. Imagine what a good story and this technology would be like. Your cynicism is holding you back.
And when you reached capacity on your mainframe you did what? Magically create a new mainframe in seconds? No, of course you didn't. That's the difference between mainframes and the cloud - "the cloud" gives you all the mainframes you could ever use. You either don't know about what using cloud services can provide, or are being intellectually dishonest. Neither is very becoming.
Those examples which don't exist, you mean. Cool. And if they did exist, you are claiming they're the reason anti-AGW researchers can't prove anything? You do realise you are insane, right?
Believing in the scientific method has nothing to do with being "tech savoy [sic]". It's quite easy for people to mash their fists on their keyboards in rage at the results of the scientific method, if they feel the results are criticising their lifestyles or people they respect, or are making them feel guilty for living their lifestyles. The science is in, regardless of what you want to believe. If you have the slightest respect for the scientific method you'd understand that people who deny climate change are denying the scientific method itself. The number of ill-thought-out posts parroting oft-debunked nonsense from WUWT doesn't challenge the underlying science, or re-shape reality, even if you agree with them whole-heatedly. If, indeed, their exclamations of fraud or trickery or illogical behaviour are in any way true, they can claim their Nobel prize next year, and be absolute heroes. The fact no-one has even come close to doing that for debunking climate change should be some indicator to you, but if you've come this far, it's not too much of a stretch for you to assume the Swedish are in on the conspiracy too, right?
The fact you're trying to reduce climatology and paleoclimatology into simple bite-size arguments kind of indicates people shouldn't listen to you, as you're either woefully ignorant of the topics, or are intentionally oversimplifying things to the point of absurdity. Using unqualified words such as "minor" and "much" really isn't helping your position. If you're trying to do an impression of someone arguing out of their depth, you're doing it really well!
Disney wouldn't be where it was today if the notion of public domain didn't exist - almost their entire early output was based on public domain texts. Using Disney as an argument for stronger copyright is fraught with issues as now they are a dominant player when it comes to stricter copyright, but wouldn't be in that position if lax attitudes towards copyright had not existed in the past.
The main people who would benefit from restricted copyright would be you and me, because unless an artist has the blessing of Disney or over $4bn, they will not stand a chance in hell of being able to publish works based on that universe, and we will never get to enjoy their art. Just imagine how much awesome work has already been missed because some judge told them they can't make it? Why do you prefer the bean-counters to the brush-wielders?
Endless studies show that pirating doesn't hurt the bottom line of movies. If anything, as pirates seem to spend more on media than non-pirates, there is a positive correlation between piracy and the money made by the studios. When it comes to music, artists can attract larger audiences as more people simply have a chance to listen to their work. Artists make the vast, vast majority of their money from live performances and merchandise, whereas nearly all money spent on records goes to the record company, which is almost entirely designed to minimise the amount of money it has to pay to artists, leading to the strange situation where a successful band can owe money to the record company. And that is just scratching the surface of a highly-complicated issue.
If you want to defend the status quo, that's fine, but when you try to condense this argument into a pithy one-liner, all you do is muddy the waters, and ensure no discussion can be had.
Some Muslims did indeed attack such groups, but only after the CIA used similar programs to engage in espionage... Religion wasn't the reason for the attacks, but perceived self-preservation.
So what's the difference between the needle and your child's pathogens? Apart from one being done for good reasons and the other through some inflated sense of self awesomeness and a refusal to listen to actual medical advice...
There you go again with your infantile hatred. You've probably met more Muslims than you realise, and none of them wanted to kill you. Get a grip - you sound like a scared child throwing a tantrum.
You clearly haven't thought this through. With your logic Stephen Hawking would have been thrown in the bin at the first sign of his disease, as he would not be strong enough to round-house a sabre-tooth dire bear in the teeth. When Darwin wrote of "survival of the fittest", he meant fittest as in "most suited", not "strongest". Humanity is as successful as it is today because we take care of our weak, not because we destroy them. You are confusing evolution through natural selection with eugenics...
It doesn't matter what random Londoners thought about Luftwaffe pilots during WWII - the RAF knew to deal with them intelligently: showing them respect, treating them well, and getting them so comfortable that they simply let their secrets slip. Couple that with some intelligent intelligence gathering (hidden microphones in common rooms, etc.), and the wealth of information gathered was incalculable, with no-one having to torture anyone. It's not about sympathy, but realising that torture simply doesn't work, and can often make things much, much worse. But well done for letting your patriotism blind you to the problems at hand. That was a treat.
Aaah there you go again making your childlike xenophobic comments. Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously on other threads when you clearly can't see past the end of your white picket fence? Your family and society failed you.
There is evidence. You not knowing about it does not make it magically not exist. You can not excuse your ignorance simply because it makes you feel better.
It's incredibly troubling that you spend so much time and energy trying to defend one shit from another because your pet shit smells ever so slightly better to you. You're defending shit like it's worth defending. Stop it, and the world might just be a better place.
You do realise that Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks were SJWs, right? You use that term like it's a bad thing, when the only negative aspect of people using that term is showing that the users of said term are either woefully ignorant, insecure beyond belief, or full of hate. Pick one. Please.
Having a gendered pronoun is more of a value than not having one, as one is clearly more accurate than the other. Accepting a pull request takes seconds, so you can't argue about developer resources, especially considering the person who was dealing with the pull request wasn't even employed by the company in question.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly not every device is bad for customers if what he/she said was true, as devices exist which don't require DRM to run, or will minimise any interoperability issues with DRM'd media.
Then don't go to that site. It's that simple. If you like the content, disable your AdBlocker. It costs them money to serve the content which you clearly appreciate.
People probably also complained in a similar fashion when talkies first appeared, and then when colour was introduced. Each one added more ways of immersing the audience, which is good. Imagine what a good story and this technology would be like. Your cynicism is holding you back.
And when you reached capacity on your mainframe you did what? Magically create a new mainframe in seconds? No, of course you didn't. That's the difference between mainframes and the cloud - "the cloud" gives you all the mainframes you could ever use. You either don't know about what using cloud services can provide, or are being intellectually dishonest. Neither is very becoming.
Those examples which don't exist, you mean. Cool. And if they did exist, you are claiming they're the reason anti-AGW researchers can't prove anything? You do realise you are insane, right?
Believing in the scientific method has nothing to do with being "tech savoy [sic]". It's quite easy for people to mash their fists on their keyboards in rage at the results of the scientific method, if they feel the results are criticising their lifestyles or people they respect, or are making them feel guilty for living their lifestyles. The science is in, regardless of what you want to believe. If you have the slightest respect for the scientific method you'd understand that people who deny climate change are denying the scientific method itself. The number of ill-thought-out posts parroting oft-debunked nonsense from WUWT doesn't challenge the underlying science, or re-shape reality, even if you agree with them whole-heatedly. If, indeed, their exclamations of fraud or trickery or illogical behaviour are in any way true, they can claim their Nobel prize next year, and be absolute heroes. The fact no-one has even come close to doing that for debunking climate change should be some indicator to you, but if you've come this far, it's not too much of a stretch for you to assume the Swedish are in on the conspiracy too, right?
The fact you're trying to reduce climatology and paleoclimatology into simple bite-size arguments kind of indicates people shouldn't listen to you, as you're either woefully ignorant of the topics, or are intentionally oversimplifying things to the point of absurdity. Using unqualified words such as "minor" and "much" really isn't helping your position. If you're trying to do an impression of someone arguing out of their depth, you're doing it really well!
Disney wouldn't be where it was today if the notion of public domain didn't exist - almost their entire early output was based on public domain texts. Using Disney as an argument for stronger copyright is fraught with issues as now they are a dominant player when it comes to stricter copyright, but wouldn't be in that position if lax attitudes towards copyright had not existed in the past.
The main people who would benefit from restricted copyright would be you and me, because unless an artist has the blessing of Disney or over $4bn, they will not stand a chance in hell of being able to publish works based on that universe, and we will never get to enjoy their art. Just imagine how much awesome work has already been missed because some judge told them they can't make it? Why do you prefer the bean-counters to the brush-wielders?
Endless studies show that pirating doesn't hurt the bottom line of movies. If anything, as pirates seem to spend more on media than non-pirates, there is a positive correlation between piracy and the money made by the studios. When it comes to music, artists can attract larger audiences as more people simply have a chance to listen to their work. Artists make the vast, vast majority of their money from live performances and merchandise, whereas nearly all money spent on records goes to the record company, which is almost entirely designed to minimise the amount of money it has to pay to artists, leading to the strange situation where a successful band can owe money to the record company. And that is just scratching the surface of a highly-complicated issue.
If you want to defend the status quo, that's fine, but when you try to condense this argument into a pithy one-liner, all you do is muddy the waters, and ensure no discussion can be had.
Some Muslims did indeed attack such groups, but only after the CIA used similar programs to engage in espionage... Religion wasn't the reason for the attacks, but perceived self-preservation.
So what's the difference between the needle and your child's pathogens? Apart from one being done for good reasons and the other through some inflated sense of self awesomeness and a refusal to listen to actual medical advice...
They are, at least in the civilised world.
Stop vaccinations in the US and see how quickly those numbers rise. It would knock your socks off.
There you go again with your infantile hatred. You've probably met more Muslims than you realise, and none of them wanted to kill you. Get a grip - you sound like a scared child throwing a tantrum.
You clearly haven't thought this through. With your logic Stephen Hawking would have been thrown in the bin at the first sign of his disease, as he would not be strong enough to round-house a sabre-tooth dire bear in the teeth. When Darwin wrote of "survival of the fittest", he meant fittest as in "most suited", not "strongest". Humanity is as successful as it is today because we take care of our weak, not because we destroy them. You are confusing evolution through natural selection with eugenics...
Everyone benefits from having an education system, whether you have kids in it or not. Your logic is infantile.
It doesn't matter what random Londoners thought about Luftwaffe pilots during WWII - the RAF knew to deal with them intelligently: showing them respect, treating them well, and getting them so comfortable that they simply let their secrets slip. Couple that with some intelligent intelligence gathering (hidden microphones in common rooms, etc.), and the wealth of information gathered was incalculable, with no-one having to torture anyone. It's not about sympathy, but realising that torture simply doesn't work, and can often make things much, much worse. But well done for letting your patriotism blind you to the problems at hand. That was a treat.
Aaah there you go again making your childlike xenophobic comments. Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously on other threads when you clearly can't see past the end of your white picket fence? Your family and society failed you.
Parts of it do apply to non-US citizens, though...
Read the IPCC reports - they do just that.
Those engaged in denying are not doing so because of scientific insight, so calling them out on their emotional response is rather fitting.
There is evidence. You not knowing about it does not make it magically not exist. You can not excuse your ignorance simply because it makes you feel better.
It's incredibly troubling that you spend so much time and energy trying to defend one shit from another because your pet shit smells ever so slightly better to you. You're defending shit like it's worth defending. Stop it, and the world might just be a better place.
You do realise that Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks were SJWs, right? You use that term like it's a bad thing, when the only negative aspect of people using that term is showing that the users of said term are either woefully ignorant, insecure beyond belief, or full of hate. Pick one. Please.
Having a gendered pronoun is more of a value than not having one, as one is clearly more accurate than the other. Accepting a pull request takes seconds, so you can't argue about developer resources, especially considering the person who was dealing with the pull request wasn't even employed by the company in question.