I hope you read this because I'm blowing my chance of modding something, and for once a subject that actually interests me has coincided with mod points..
You are obviously doing something wrong. Steam is open, you disconnect from the internet? Close steam, restart steam, click the "Start in Offline mode" button. OR, simply open the Games menu, go to File, and down to the "Go Offline" option.... it's really not hard. You can use steam and never ever connect to the internet and still play any of the single-player games with no problems whatsoever.
The temperature they served their coffee was entirely reasonable and proper for coffee.
If you go to a pizza place and buy a pizza, and are handed one that JUST came out of the oven, are told "This just came out, it's real hot", and immediately bite into a slice -- you're going to have some pretty nasty burns in your mouth. And it's NOT the pizza place's fault. It's yours. If you take that pizza, and trip and fall over your own feet and land on top of the pizza and burn your hands? It's YOUR fault, again. Exact same deal.
No, actually, the mcdonald's coffee case WAS entirely frivolous and a complete mockery of the court system
Coffee is supposed to be brewed HOT. It is supposed to be served HOT. You spill HOT SHIT on you, and you GET BURNT.
That woman was sold a cup of coffee that was somewhere between 180-190 F. That's hot, sure. Starbucks sells hotter coffee -- actually the crap sold by starbucks is FAR too hot to drink and tastes like it's been overroasted and brewed too hot and kept too hot for too long, but nobody goes to starbucks to buy a cup of drip coffee. That's another rant.
Coffee is ideally brewed at 200 F. It's best served very soon after brewing. That means.. it's going to be hot. Very hot. Ideally, again, somewhere between..
oh god, how can this be? Somewhere between 180-190 F.
Here's a question. Do you think a reasonable person would expect to be burnt if they spilled coffee on themselves? Hey I'll give you the answer. It's "yes". If there was a reasonable expectation that coffee would NOT burn you, the woman would have a case.
Fact of the matter is that the coffee was brewed and served correctly and the best thing to do is NOT FUCKING SPILL COFFEE ON YOURSELF AND BLAME SOMEONE ELSE.
A simply fantastical amount of human progress has come about through the development of weapons and their subsequent reapplication for less violent uses.
We'd be nowhere if we hadn't first learned how to make knives and spears and bows and arrows.
He picked salt up off the ground, along with many others. This was against the law. They were imprisoned. iirc, this was not the only time Gandhi found himself in jail.
The law was not just. An unjust law does not deserve to be followed.
I don't believe it was actually copyright infringement prior to 1992 -- I think it was more simply existing in a sort of limbo.
Prior to 1992 you were allowed to record all sorts of other things.. record things on to your VHS, record things on to tape, time-shifting and media-shifting was all gravy. The only difference was the CD/mp3 was something new and not specifically mentioned... which comes pretty close to being the same shitstain as the obvious-patent trolls. if something is not specifically, exactly, precisely spelled out for them they legalese their way into doing whatever they want -- but the obvious-patent trolls are starting to get their comeuppance, and the RIAA's in store for some too. Or was. They did back off the ripping-CDs coment.
Ripping CDs to mp3 prior to 1992 was not precisely legally defined as fair use, but in reality it's practically indistinguishable from the already-established fair use exceptions for personal backup copies of software, or format-shifting (as from vinyl to cassette) which was also allowed
People who pull shit like this deserve to be demeaned.
She did not misspeak. She knew exactly what she was saying, she knew exactly what she was trying to accomplish by being deceitful, she was assuming other people were idiots who couldn't possibly see through her clever ruse let alone the clever lie it would be covered up with.. and, albeit INCREDIBLY indirectly, she insulted my intelligence by trying to lie so absolutely ineptly.
If you're going to be deceitful and be a liar, AT LEAST BE GODDAMNED GOOD AT IT. If your lies are more transparent and obvious than shit I pulled when I was FIVE YEARS OLD... you don't deserve to lie and assume people will buy it.
Sometimes this shit makes me weep, because the only way these people could possibly imagine than their lies would go unchallenged is a past history of pulling similar lies off successfully, which means there's a lot of absurdly stupid and naive people out there who would jump over cheap beach-front property in south dakota and are eagerly awaiting their share of some dead nigerian's fortune.
"but there is an argument that copying a CD to a computer is still copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if it's a good argument or a bad argument (I think most/. readers think it's a bad argument). All that matters is that it's an argument that one could make with a straight face in court (there's a "copy" of the data on the CD created--hence copyright infringement). That's enough to make it not a lie."
Uh. Except it's NOT copyright infringement, it falls under fair use for consumers. we're allowed to make copies of shit for our own personal use.
Sharing those copies is not allowed.
Breaking through copy-prevention is now allowed. The copying ITSELF is still allowed, it is the circumvention / disabling of the copy-prevention that is against the law.
This bitch did not misspeak. She was asked if it was okay for a consumer who legally purchased a track to make a copy of that track. She responded by saying that's a "nice way of saying -- steals one copy."
She knew exactly what she was saying, there is absolutely no way she could have misunderstood the question to be about illegal downloading, as the RIAA pres claims. Nor was it even a question about ripping CDs, also as stated by the RIAA pres.. it was a question about a legal purchase of a track, and making a copy of that track. Nothing about downloading, nothing about sharing, nothing.
Their expert testimony just proved itself to be as dumb or dumber than we all thought initially, and is no expert. I for one would not expect an expert to so grossly misunderstand a question that a flat answer would be given -- if there's the least doubt that you fully understand the question I would expect a request for the question to be clarified so a truly expert answer could be given. Not just off-the-cuff let's-make-a-case-OO-RAH bullshit.
actually, the pharma companies are bigger than drug cartels.. who makes more money varies i think whether you look at total revenue or profit -- i think pharmas win the first and cartels the latter. i could be wrong.
even with subsidized medicare and caps on drug prices it'd still be cheaper to throw 50 bucks at a bag of coke for a toothache than go to a dentist and all that happy jazz.. but er, last time i had to get a filling it was only 115 bucks. short-term more expensive but it'd fix a tooth ache longer
Apple's not about design, Apple's about marketing.
Find an Apple product and you can find someone else who makes the same thing, better, cheaper, but it won't have the Apple branding and it probably won't be interoperable / moddable by 3rd party products as easy since they're generally geared towards the Apple product that has the huge market share (iPod I'm looking at you)
I was scrolling through looking to see if someone hadn't made this sort of comment.
If no one had, I was going to.. instead I'll throw my support behind your comment as much as I can with no mod points.
Second Life is just.. just fucking terrible. I've seen articles about second life in all SORTS of publications, because the writers play.. and the funniest one was in a business mag, geared towards management (i can only assume middle.. blegh). Talked about all sorts of buzzwords, bunch of bullshit, you get to the end of the article and the writer included a shot of his in-game character, how nice.
With a tiger's head.
The shit you're forced to read when you're not-working at work and already read the 4-day old newpaper..
Nothing that came out this year was really innovative, though.
the iPhone? Uh, ok. Mainstream. That just means someone took an already existing idea and slapped a lot of marketing and PR behind it... but the actual IDEA behind the iPhone is at least a decade old. Hybrids are a wash through and through. They're neat.. and nothing special. and VoIP? Uhm. 11 years ago there were several popular free internet telephone services.. OK, so you had to connect to the internet to use them, and OK, back in that day and age most everybody connected via modem, BUT.. it was there. As a teenager I was able to talk to many people all across the country with no long distance charges. THAT was cool. VoIP now? Merely an extention of that, made easier due to the proliferation of cable/dsl, and oh now you have to pay for it but hey you can use your regular phone now so I guess that's OK.
Honestly the only really innovative and new thing I can bring to mind is the Wii -- a successful console, wildly successful, that uses a non-traditional control mechanism? Now that's a miracle.
the 2 year plan just means you pre-emptively agree to buy iPhone 2.0 next year (this year), and don't need any further agreement. the plan is still there, yes, but your old outdated iPhone is no longer trendy or stylish and must be replaced.
This is IMAGINED societal pressure. In other words, complete and absolute overreaction.
This is someone THINKING that because, say, some girl MAY have been drinking alcohol -- probably was -- that that somehow means she can't be a teacher.
At issue is the expectation for our day-to-day lives to be held to the same standard we keep while on the clock at work. Yeah.. maybe it's not a good idea to post shit like that online. Fact is, though -- if you don't WANT to see that sort of shit about somebody? Don't look for it! Simple as that.
but the guy i originally was responding to, who set my blind rage to 11, apparently just says "half two".. which is dumb. half PAST two is clear and good. not really "shorter" than two thirty, but it flows easier when you slur things and we all do so.. yeah.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm very comfortable with the fact that I'll no longer have my eyesight, at the very least, 100 years from now.
Try and convince me I won't have super awesome brain-in-a-jar ROBOT eyesight and you may run in to some difficulty, though.
If by "sue" you mean "shoot" and "the heck out" you mean "in the face", I'm with you dude.
I hope you read this because I'm blowing my chance of modding something, and for once a subject that actually interests me has coincided with mod points..
... it's really not hard. You can use steam and never ever connect to the internet and still play any of the single-player games with no problems whatsoever.
You are obviously doing something wrong. Steam is open, you disconnect from the internet? Close steam, restart steam, click the "Start in Offline mode" button. OR, simply open the Games menu, go to File, and down to the "Go Offline" option.
I bet an equally-massive lump of metal doing mach 9 would do the trick
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE THE RAILGUN WAR! quickly, we must develop one that goes to 11!
The temperature they served their coffee was entirely reasonable and proper for coffee.
If you go to a pizza place and buy a pizza, and are handed one that JUST came out of the oven, are told "This just came out, it's real hot", and immediately bite into a slice -- you're going to have some pretty nasty burns in your mouth.
And it's NOT the pizza place's fault. It's yours.
If you take that pizza, and trip and fall over your own feet and land on top of the pizza and burn your hands? It's YOUR fault, again.
Exact same deal.
More people need to read this post, someone mod it up more. :O
No, actually, the mcdonald's coffee case WAS entirely frivolous and a complete mockery of the court system
Coffee is supposed to be brewed HOT. It is supposed to be served HOT. You spill HOT SHIT on you, and you GET BURNT.
That woman was sold a cup of coffee that was somewhere between 180-190 F. That's hot, sure. Starbucks sells hotter coffee -- actually the crap sold by starbucks is FAR too hot to drink and tastes like it's been overroasted and brewed too hot and kept too hot for too long, but nobody goes to starbucks to buy a cup of drip coffee. That's another rant.
Coffee is ideally brewed at 200 F. It's best served very soon after brewing. That means.. it's going to be hot. Very hot. Ideally, again, somewhere between..
oh god, how can this be? Somewhere between 180-190 F.
Here's a question. Do you think a reasonable person would expect to be burnt if they spilled coffee on themselves? Hey I'll give you the answer. It's "yes". If there was a reasonable expectation that coffee would NOT burn you, the woman would have a case.
Fact of the matter is that the coffee was brewed and served correctly and the best thing to do is NOT FUCKING SPILL COFFEE ON YOURSELF AND BLAME SOMEONE ELSE.
Not at all. I clearly saw an invitation to gloat.
"Who would've guessed that ... Slashdot ... was using the pseudonym "KanshuShintai?""
--
I don't know what you're talking about, I just went to KanshuShintai.com and there was no old news, no dupes, no cowboyneil..
I for one welcome our looped-steel-wire overlords!
A simply fantastical amount of human progress has come about through the development of weapons and their subsequent reapplication for less violent uses.
We'd be nowhere if we hadn't first learned how to make knives and spears and bows and arrows.
Do you even know what you're talking about.
Gandhi broke the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi#Swaraj_and_the_Salt_Satyagraha_.28Salt_March.29
He picked salt up off the ground, along with many others. This was against the law. They were imprisoned. iirc, this was not the only time Gandhi found himself in jail.
The law was not just. An unjust law does not deserve to be followed.
I don't believe it was actually copyright infringement prior to 1992 -- I think it was more simply existing in a sort of limbo.
Prior to 1992 you were allowed to record all sorts of other things.. record things on to your VHS, record things on to tape, time-shifting and media-shifting was all gravy. The only difference was the CD/mp3 was something new and not specifically mentioned... which comes pretty close to being the same shitstain as the obvious-patent trolls. if something is not specifically, exactly, precisely spelled out for them they legalese their way into doing whatever they want -- but the obvious-patent trolls are starting to get their comeuppance, and the RIAA's in store for some too. Or was. They did back off the ripping-CDs coment.
Ripping CDs to mp3 prior to 1992 was not precisely legally defined as fair use, but in reality it's practically indistinguishable from the already-established fair use exceptions for personal backup copies of software, or format-shifting (as from vinyl to cassette) which was also allowed
Precisely my point.
People who pull shit like this deserve to be demeaned.
She did not misspeak. She knew exactly what she was saying, she knew exactly what she was trying to accomplish by being deceitful, she was assuming other people were idiots who couldn't possibly see through her clever ruse let alone the clever lie it would be covered up with.. and, albeit INCREDIBLY indirectly, she insulted my intelligence by trying to lie so absolutely ineptly.
If you're going to be deceitful and be a liar, AT LEAST BE GODDAMNED GOOD AT IT. If your lies are more transparent and obvious than shit I pulled when I was FIVE YEARS OLD... you don't deserve to lie and assume people will buy it.
Sometimes this shit makes me weep, because the only way these people could possibly imagine than their lies would go unchallenged is a past history of pulling similar lies off successfully, which means there's a lot of absurdly stupid and naive people out there who would jump over cheap beach-front property in south dakota and are eagerly awaiting their share of some dead nigerian's fortune.
"but there is an argument that copying a CD to a computer is still copyright infringement. It doesn't matter if it's a good argument or a bad argument (I think most /. readers think it's a bad argument). All that matters is that it's an argument that one could make with a straight face in court (there's a "copy" of the data on the CD created--hence copyright infringement). That's enough to make it not a lie."
Uh. Except it's NOT copyright infringement, it falls under fair use for consumers. we're allowed to make copies of shit for our own personal use.
Sharing those copies is not allowed.
Breaking through copy-prevention is now allowed. The copying ITSELF is still allowed, it is the circumvention / disabling of the copy-prevention that is against the law.
This bitch did not misspeak. She was asked if it was okay for a consumer who legally purchased a track to make a copy of that track. She responded by saying that's a "nice way of saying -- steals one copy."
She knew exactly what she was saying, there is absolutely no way she could have misunderstood the question to be about illegal downloading, as the RIAA pres claims. Nor was it even a question about ripping CDs, also as stated by the RIAA pres.. it was a question about a legal purchase of a track, and making a copy of that track. Nothing about downloading, nothing about sharing, nothing.
Their expert testimony just proved itself to be as dumb or dumber than we all thought initially, and is no expert. I for one would not expect an expert to so grossly misunderstand a question that a flat answer would be given -- if there's the least doubt that you fully understand the question I would expect a request for the question to be clarified so a truly expert answer could be given. Not just off-the-cuff let's-make-a-case-OO-RAH bullshit.
actually, the pharma companies are bigger than drug cartels.. who makes more money varies i think whether you look at total revenue or profit -- i think pharmas win the first and cartels the latter. i could be wrong.
even with subsidized medicare and caps on drug prices it'd still be cheaper to throw 50 bucks at a bag of coke for a toothache than go to a dentist and all that happy jazz.. but er, last time i had to get a filling it was only 115 bucks. short-term more expensive but it'd fix a tooth ache longer
Apple's not about design, Apple's about marketing.
Find an Apple product and you can find someone else who makes the same thing, better, cheaper, but it won't have the Apple branding and it probably won't be interoperable / moddable by 3rd party products as easy since they're generally geared towards the Apple product that has the huge market share (iPod I'm looking at you)
I was scrolling through looking to see if someone hadn't made this sort of comment.
If no one had, I was going to.. instead I'll throw my support behind your comment as much as I can with no mod points.
Second Life is just.. just fucking terrible. I've seen articles about second life in all SORTS of publications, because the writers play.. and the funniest one was in a business mag, geared towards management (i can only assume middle.. blegh). Talked about all sorts of buzzwords, bunch of bullshit, you get to the end of the article and the writer included a shot of his in-game character, how nice.
With a tiger's head.
The shit you're forced to read when you're not-working at work and already read the 4-day old newpaper..
Nothing that came out this year was really innovative, though.
the iPhone? Uh, ok. Mainstream. That just means someone took an already existing idea and slapped a lot of marketing and PR behind it... but the actual IDEA behind the iPhone is at least a decade old.
Hybrids are a wash through and through. They're neat.. and nothing special.
and VoIP? Uhm. 11 years ago there were several popular free internet telephone services.. OK, so you had to connect to the internet to use them, and OK, back in that day and age most everybody connected via modem, BUT.. it was there. As a teenager I was able to talk to many people all across the country with no long distance charges. THAT was cool. VoIP now? Merely an extention of that, made easier due to the proliferation of cable/dsl, and oh now you have to pay for it but hey you can use your regular phone now so I guess that's OK.
Honestly the only really innovative and new thing I can bring to mind is the Wii -- a successful console, wildly successful, that uses a non-traditional control mechanism? Now that's a miracle.
the 2 year plan just means you pre-emptively agree to buy iPhone 2.0 next year (this year), and don't need any further agreement. the plan is still there, yes, but your old outdated iPhone is no longer trendy or stylish and must be replaced.
i'm trying very hard to throw points at you...
let me know when it starts working.
No, this is not societal pressure.
This is IMAGINED societal pressure. In other words, complete and absolute overreaction.
This is someone THINKING that because, say, some girl MAY have been drinking alcohol -- probably was -- that that somehow means she can't be a teacher.
At issue is the expectation for our day-to-day lives to be held to the same standard we keep while on the clock at work. Yeah.. maybe it's not a good idea to post shit like that online. Fact is, though -- if you don't WANT to see that sort of shit about somebody? Don't look for it! Simple as that.
I highly doubt those alloys would be used to replace titanium on any consumer good.
The idea is to cut corners and cost.
oh, half past two is fine.
but the guy i originally was responding to, who set my blind rage to 11, apparently just says "half two".. which is dumb. half PAST two is clear and good. not really "shorter" than two thirty, but it flows easier when you slur things and we all do so.. yeah.
two thir tee
half two
one's 3 syllables, one's 2 syllables.. not a remarkable gain for such an ambiguous expression