Um, your idiotic comparision isn't valid. Any battery with the same specifications should work. I wonder what you'd say if a Microsoft Wireless keyboard only used Microsoft brand AA batteries.
Ever think to double-check before making your claim?
As the OP I'm very confident that I did not 'tout' 'the' feature. I 'touted' plenty of features. My point still stands, you're own logic fails the consistency check.
Oh stop it, you were called out, now be a big boy and grow up. Go read your post. It basically says "oh I don't have to worry about telemarketers anymore, I have selective blah blah blha." Why bother posting what GV does unless it's something you couldn't do before.. which was my point.
Yeah, all of the features have been available from phone companies, but hardly anyone one customer has had access to all of the features from just one phone company, and never for free.
You're kidding me right? Exactly which features do you think phone companies weren't offering before? Maybe you live in east bumblefuck, IA, but in modern places these things have been available for some time. As for the cost, so what? THAT'S what google brings? You get to pay via advertisments instead of money.
I'm not debating that... but lets be real, I don't have a choice whether to pay taxes or not. My money is being taken by force. Your argument is that the theft benefits me, which is true.. but I'm not sure that makes it any more right. After all, I can't steal from you to give to an AIDs research charity. You'd still claim it was wrong.
You know the IRS has it's own armed police, right?
The implication is in the mind of the beholder. Spouting off about "X, Y and Z" is simply pointing them out.
Yes, that's great marketing... "look, we can do exactly the same thing as everyone else!" No, it's not just in the mind, that's how marketing works. It's not "we're an exact clone!" it's "we can do X, but better!"
You only went jousting after X in the list. By logic just like your own, that must mean you think all the other features ARE innovative
I only went after the feature the OP was touting. Looking at the full feature list, it isn't anything you couldn't do before. Conference call, really, you're going to tell me that's new or innovative?
So please, stop it. All this GV is is google offering some features you could get from a phone company for years. I'm not impressed.
Don't plant trees at all. Plant one (or several) of the many crops that remove CO2 at a much higher tons/acre-year rate than trees do and start doing so immediately.
Such as? Also, are you going to go there and make sure there's plenty of water available? After all, a single drought can wipe out any plants.
No. It only does so after at least ten years of political wrangling, contract negotiations, R&D, and manufacturing (assuming everything goes smoothly and there are no nimby lawsuits).
Huh? It sounds like the technology is already there, as it's the same thing coal plants are doing now. you're also assuming many things which may not come to pass (nimby? really, even if you can put it on top of a building?) and other factors.
Do you have any evidence that any of these problems are already creeping up, or do you just think we should go back to the stone age?
If you believe you should not get a ticket for speeding, then you need to petition a law change... not expect law enforcement to turn a blind eye.
Ahh, if you don't like the Kings Law, then petition the King eh? Ya, that worked out really well.. it's not like serveral countries (i.e., the US and France) got fed up enough to throw out the King.
Well, it's not like we're cutting them down for the hell of it... trees have a purpose and usefulness.
The other thing is that that no matter how many trees you plant, it still takes years before they are able to take up significant amounts of C02... where as one of these does so immediately.
The person deprived of something is the one which created the work to begin with.. hence why we have copyright laws to begin with. It was reconized that the original creator would not be motivated to create if they money dries, which leaves us where we were in the dark ages; rich kings directly employing an artist because they wanted something, and very little was made for the public to enjoy.
Their intention is quite clear; to get something for nothing. Otherwise, they would pay. Paying is always an option, no one will forbid you to buy a CD or pay for a downloadable song.
Your entire harm principal's application is debatable, since it was authored by one that had a great influence on our Founders... and they indeed put the basis for copyright directly into the Constitution. Clearly they saw the need for it, and that it does work to promote the arts.
What does downloading a song from someone else to do promote the arts (that is, the creation of more... not the spread of something already created)?
Well, when one is touting how great a service is and why they think it will take off, and they spout off "X, Y and Z," it certainly sounds like "hey look at all this service can do," implying others don't.
Which actually makes sense doesn't it... if you are speeding and watching tv but not getting into an accident, whats the problem? I would think reckless drively is driving that causes an accident... so it would seem to be something else.
Newer acuras have a fully integerated solution, so for those it doesn't matter what the source is, the gps drops the volume of the music so you can hear the alert.
The SSN became popular in the US because it is basically the closest thing to a unique identifier for people because everyone has one, everyone's is different, it never changes, and is backed (and paid for) by the government.
It's not unique; they are recycled (hey, at least govt is being green, right?). The first five digits are based on where you are born, and the last four are basically a serial number. So no, not everyone's is different, because the number outlives the person. Yes,people can and do take advantage of that fact often. Also, it CAN be changed, if you can prove huge amounts of fraud because someone stole your identity. Its really hard, but can be done.
The fact it was originally used for tax purposes actually didn't factor into it very much.
It was orginally used for SSI purposes... taxes came later.
That's quite untrue. It's far less heinous to attack nebulous, undefined "rights" than it is to attack concrete, defined rights, especially when those defined rights have been part of the foundation of the country since its creation.
No, its not, and people like you are the reason some of the Founders didn't want to spell out some of the rights in a list. Go do some research on the creation of the Bill of Rights, and the arguments of some against it.
I don't know any high-profile conservatives that hate video games. Jack Thompson showed himself to be the idiot he is. I'm unaware of any anti-video-game legislation, and certainly none backed by conservatives.
Then you're not paying attention at a state level.
I'm unaware of any legislation in the works that aims to ban pornography depicting consensual sexual activity between adults, and certainly none backed by conservatives.
Again, go out and do some research.
That wasn't put to a state vote, so it's not really relevant to my comments - besides, it went nowhere and though I don't know if it's still technically a law, it's not being enforced.
Yet it's a law in the state of Utah, supposedly the same conservatives that aren't looking to trample anyone's rights. You're being willfully ignorant, espcially considering the bill was hosted on the state legislature's own page.
Constitutional amendments need a two-thirds vote to be ratified, if memory serves - you'll notice that Utah voted for it on December 5th, and (together with the other states that voted for it on that day) was the vote that made it an amendment.
Yes, I noticed it was the LAST state to do so as well, when many others voted to ratify it as early as April. Oh, and it wouldn't have mattered. Those states that ratify before ensured it would have passed regardless of the other states.
So... yes, I'm sure about that.
Then you're being willfully ignorant; clearly the rights (and there are others which I've not mentioned) that conservatives trample aren't any you exercise. Your bias is showing.
You might have a point, but it's stupid for liberals to claim we're taking away fundamental rights (which are NOT spelled out) while they go around trying to take away fundamental rights which ARE spelled out.
Whether they are spelt out or not is irrlevent, both sides are attacking fundamental rights.
The word for that is "hypocrisy".
It also doesn't mean the liberals aren't correct; the fact that they are acting hypocritcally doesn't negate when they point out a wrong.
If you want "the right to watch other adults engage in consensual sexual activity" to be spelled out, well, vote an amendment to the constitution.
Why? There's no need to, I already have the right, regardless of whether it appears in the consitution or not. My point is not that the right isn't spelt out, it's that regardless of what liberals are doing, consservates are doing the same thing, just attacking different rights.
In any case, your point is sort of wrong, because very, very few conservatives want porn to be illegal. They want child porn to be illegal, of course, but then, so does most everybody.
Really? That's not the message I'm getting from Sarah Palin and friends. Conservatives also seem to really hate video games, and it doesn't help that religious wackos (who do want to ban porn) highjacked the conservative platform as well.
To put a little substance behind that claim, Utah has a very high porn subscription rate, despite its conservative population. I suspect most of them would not vote to ban porn. Utah was also (essentially) the vote that ended the Prohibition. If your point about conservatives were correct, neither of those things would be true.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, your idiotic comparision isn't valid. Any battery with the same specifications should work. I wonder what you'd say if a Microsoft Wireless keyboard only used Microsoft brand AA batteries.
Ah... well I never heard of that either until I stumbled upon Fallout 3.
And what the hell has Bathesda done?
Oblivion, which I can't comment on, and Fallout 3, which I've found very enjoyable. I'm sure there are others... have you tried googling?
Hmm.... yes, but then combat is typical FPS action. It's an FPS RPG.. if that makes sense.
Selective memory much?
Ever think to double-check before making your claim?
As the OP I'm very confident that I did not 'tout' 'the' feature. I 'touted' plenty of features. My point still stands, you're own logic fails the consistency check.
Oh stop it, you were called out, now be a big boy and grow up. Go read your post. It basically says "oh I don't have to worry about telemarketers anymore, I have selective blah blah blha." Why bother posting what GV does unless it's something you couldn't do before.. which was my point.
Yeah, all of the features have been available from phone companies, but hardly anyone one customer has had access to all of the features from just one phone company, and never for free.
You're kidding me right? Exactly which features do you think phone companies weren't offering before? Maybe you live in east bumblefuck, IA, but in modern places these things have been available for some time. As for the cost, so what? THAT'S what google brings? You get to pay via advertisments instead of money.
I'm not debating that... but lets be real, I don't have a choice whether to pay taxes or not. My money is being taken by force. Your argument is that the theft benefits me, which is true.. but I'm not sure that makes it any more right. After all, I can't steal from you to give to an AIDs research charity. You'd still claim it was wrong.
You know the IRS has it's own armed police, right?
The implication is in the mind of the beholder. Spouting off about "X, Y and Z" is simply pointing them out.
Yes, that's great marketing... "look, we can do exactly the same thing as everyone else!" No, it's not just in the mind, that's how marketing works. It's not "we're an exact clone!" it's "we can do X, but better!"
You only went jousting after X in the list. By logic just like your own, that must mean you think all the other features ARE innovative
I only went after the feature the OP was touting. Looking at the full feature list, it isn't anything you couldn't do before. Conference call, really, you're going to tell me that's new or innovative?
So please, stop it. All this GV is is google offering some features you could get from a phone company for years. I'm not impressed.
Don't plant trees at all. Plant one (or several) of the many crops that remove CO2 at a much higher tons/acre-year rate than trees do and start doing so immediately.
Such as? Also, are you going to go there and make sure there's plenty of water available? After all, a single drought can wipe out any plants.
No. It only does so after at least ten years of political wrangling, contract negotiations, R&D, and manufacturing (assuming everything goes smoothly and there are no nimby lawsuits).
Huh? It sounds like the technology is already there, as it's the same thing coal plants are doing now. you're also assuming many things which may not come to pass (nimby? really, even if you can put it on top of a building?) and other factors.
Do you have any evidence that any of these problems are already creeping up, or do you just think we should go back to the stone age?
Initially that's how it worked, but now its just outright banned.
If you believe you should not get a ticket for speeding, then you need to petition a law change... not expect law enforcement to turn a blind eye.
Ahh, if you don't like the Kings Law, then petition the King eh? Ya, that worked out really well.. it's not like serveral countries (i.e., the US and France) got fed up enough to throw out the King.
Cheat on taxes is stealing, yet a tax is nothing more than legalized stealing by the government... how interesting.
shit-crazy Unibomber types to living in our mothers' basements
I think you're insulting the Unibomber. IIRC, he at least had his OWN place to live.
Well, it's not like we're cutting them down for the hell of it... trees have a purpose and usefulness.
The other thing is that that no matter how many trees you plant, it still takes years before they are able to take up significant amounts of C02... where as one of these does so immediately.
The person deprived of something is the one which created the work to begin with.. hence why we have copyright laws to begin with. It was reconized that the original creator would not be motivated to create if they money dries, which leaves us where we were in the dark ages; rich kings directly employing an artist because they wanted something, and very little was made for the public to enjoy.
Their intention is quite clear; to get something for nothing. Otherwise, they would pay. Paying is always an option, no one will forbid you to buy a CD or pay for a downloadable song.
Your entire harm principal's application is debatable, since it was authored by one that had a great influence on our Founders... and they indeed put the basis for copyright directly into the Constitution. Clearly they saw the need for it, and that it does work to promote the arts.
What does downloading a song from someone else to do promote the arts (that is, the creation of more... not the spread of something already created)?
Yet a service pack for Sharepoint is what it takes to address the issue... fascinating.
Well, when one is touting how great a service is and why they think it will take off, and they spout off "X, Y and Z," it certainly sounds like "hey look at all this service can do," implying others don't.
Which actually makes sense doesn't it... if you are speeding and watching tv but not getting into an accident, whats the problem? I would think reckless drively is driving that causes an accident... so it would seem to be something else.
Newer acuras have a fully integerated solution, so for those it doesn't matter what the source is, the gps drops the volume of the music so you can hear the alert.
However most 3rd party fitters will bypass this restriction, and it's fairly common to see asshats driving round with the TV fully on.
Well, at least they're not crashing then, right?
The SSN became popular in the US because it is basically the closest thing to a unique identifier for people because everyone has one, everyone's is different, it never changes, and is backed (and paid for) by the government.
It's not unique; they are recycled (hey, at least govt is being green, right?). The first five digits are based on where you are born, and the last four are basically a serial number. So no, not everyone's is different, because the number outlives the person. Yes,people can and do take advantage of that fact often. Also, it CAN be changed, if you can prove huge amounts of fraud because someone stole your identity. Its really hard, but can be done.
The fact it was originally used for tax purposes actually didn't factor into it very much.
It was orginally used for SSI purposes... taxes came later.
Well, someone with an ounce of sense would have dropped the issue immediately and gone to a company that actually wanted your business.
That's quite untrue. It's far less heinous to attack nebulous, undefined "rights" than it is to attack concrete, defined rights, especially when those defined rights have been part of the foundation of the country since its creation.
No, its not, and people like you are the reason some of the Founders didn't want to spell out some of the rights in a list. Go do some research on the creation of the Bill of Rights, and the arguments of some against it.
I don't know any high-profile conservatives that hate video games. Jack Thompson showed himself to be the idiot he is. I'm unaware of any anti-video-game legislation, and certainly none backed by conservatives.
Then you're not paying attention at a state level.
I'm unaware of any legislation in the works that aims to ban pornography depicting consensual sexual activity between adults, and certainly none backed by conservatives.
Again, go out and do some research.
That wasn't put to a state vote, so it's not really relevant to my comments - besides, it went nowhere and though I don't know if it's still technically a law, it's not being enforced.
Yet it's a law in the state of Utah, supposedly the same conservatives that aren't looking to trample anyone's rights. You're being willfully ignorant, espcially considering the bill was hosted on the state legislature's own page.
Constitutional amendments need a two-thirds vote to be ratified, if memory serves - you'll notice that Utah voted for it on December 5th, and (together with the other states that voted for it on that day) was the vote that made it an amendment.
Yes, I noticed it was the LAST state to do so as well, when many others voted to ratify it as early as April. Oh, and it wouldn't have mattered. Those states that ratify before ensured it would have passed regardless of the other states.
So... yes, I'm sure about that.
Then you're being willfully ignorant; clearly the rights (and there are others which I've not mentioned) that conservatives trample aren't any you exercise. Your bias is showing.
Ahh, so it's IEs fault when an ActiveX control is wrong.
Vonage was doing it as part of their base rate for a few years now too.
Seriously, google isn't doing anything new or innovative... sorry I'm not totally amazed by google, but I prefer reality to your fanboyism.
You might have a point, but it's stupid for liberals to claim we're taking away fundamental rights (which are NOT spelled out) while they go around trying to take away fundamental rights which ARE spelled out.
Whether they are spelt out or not is irrlevent, both sides are attacking fundamental rights.
The word for that is "hypocrisy".
It also doesn't mean the liberals aren't correct; the fact that they are acting hypocritcally doesn't negate when they point out a wrong.
If you want "the right to watch other adults engage in consensual sexual activity" to be spelled out, well, vote an amendment to the constitution.
Why? There's no need to, I already have the right, regardless of whether it appears in the consitution or not. My point is not that the right isn't spelt out, it's that regardless of what liberals are doing, consservates are doing the same thing, just attacking different rights.
In any case, your point is sort of wrong, because very, very few conservatives want porn to be illegal. They want child porn to be illegal, of course, but then, so does most everybody.
Really? That's not the message I'm getting from Sarah Palin and friends. Conservatives also seem to really hate video games, and it doesn't help that religious wackos (who do want to ban porn) highjacked the conservative platform as well.
To put a little substance behind that claim, Utah has a very high porn subscription rate, despite its conservative population. I suspect most of them would not vote to ban porn. Utah was also (essentially) the vote that ended the Prohibition. If your point about conservatives were correct, neither of those things would be true.
You sure about that?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/22/utah_filtering_law/
http://www.prohibitionrepeal.com/legacy/hall.asp