He's the one accused of murdering her! Without there even being a body or obvious evidence she's dead! (Or at least not that we've been told) Also, I can't imagine that all of her friends were made only after the divorce. Surely some people knew them both. If they don't want to support him at least until there's real evidence otherwise... bah! That's heartless.
now that you mention it, anyone notice how the friends in the guestbook say support her family and her boyfriend, but don't say support Hans, too?
They must either already believe him to be guilty, or there's enough spite involved among her friends that if he's innocent, they still don't think he should get support, just because he's the ex.
It was a gimmick to get people to try the search engine, and hopefully like it. However, once people tried it for a week or so, they either liked it or moved back to their favorite engine, just sending enough searches A9's way to keep the discount up. So it was still costing revenue but not really generating new active users out of those signed up for the discount. A case could be made, therefore, that the cost per user continued to rise over time.
You can never be sure someone is reformed; you only know when they fall back to their old ways, assuming you catch them. Part of this is because of the ideological mindset; the ones who claim they did it all as a game still often think it's fun, and they seem to lack the subconscious barriers to antisocial behavior that normall tell people that it's destructive behavior. They may "go legit," but how do sociopaths grow ethical and/or moral senses?
These people still like manipulating people through different levels of social engineering. What says people like this won't just try to find other ways to screw with things or people, but in legal ways? What about those egos? Who really wants that in an organization?
If I were going to consider any former black hats at all, it would be those who did things like make spyware on contract in Eastern Europe, in order to feed their families, or something similar. I'd still be leery, but they at least have a situation of duress to claim. If I'm satisfied that they otherwise meet the profile of people I like to hire, I'd just have to worry that they feel rewarded enough that they can take care of their families. But I'd have that worry about all my employees.
Yes, yes, but you have to think about it in order to get that level. It's easier to ridicule someone as getting their news from a comedian, than an ostensibly serious and objective news organization. They can even trot out the "you may think it's funny, but our boys are over there dying to protect your right to laugh" line, to hijack some people emotionally.
it's surprising that they get to say so much that the rest of us are thinking.
Nah, they're just playing to another target demo for ad revenue. Poor people and other people who otherwise don't have cable or satellite or internet access will likely never see it. If it was on broadcast TV, where someone impressionable might come across it and become enlightened (or corrupted, depending on POV), then it would be more of a threat.
As it is, since Stewart and Colbert have most of the audience for this sort of thing, it's easy for conservatives to pigeonhole people who share that sentiment, too. Just like we make fun of O'Reilly and Fox News. Only they find it easy to point, because everyone knows the Daily Show is not meant to be taken seriously, but, sadly, Fox convinces many people to take them seriously.
While looking for the Fort Worth Water Gardens, I found this. Note the lake's color range, not just its unnatural appearance. Now zoom out a couple times. They've obviously retouched the lake in the closer images, because you can see evidence of dodging and burning.
1) Can plastic batteries be recycled, and if they aren't, how long is it projected to take for them to degrade in a landfill? 2) How long until all plastics are banned from commercial flights, because they might be illicit power sources for bombs or weapons?
Seems like the submitter managed to leave out quite a few things from the article, like the fact that the subtitle is: Apple's top-end laptop runs Vista better than a high-end Sony Vaio
How ironic -- when I saw the headline, I thought, "why don't they post the one that was news a couple days ago, about how it runs better than a Sony?" That's how off this submission was.
I had a look at the firefly section and the descriptions for the individual television episodes give away all the twists! they should have spoilers for that stuff.
That's because the other 34,999 of us fans have already seen them all, but who pays attention to titles?
I recently started receiving ads through regular mail about online sports betting, thick "betting guides," and the like.
I don't gamble. I wouldn't even know what the terms of a bet meant, or how to make one. I certainly don't have any money. I live in Dallas, where these arrests have been taking place. So far, they're just targeting site owners, but you can bet* they'll go after people who use the sites, eventually. Am I being set up?
Why would you care about getting back the same garbage can? As long as they're all the same size, who cares? All they do is hold your garbage so no matter which one you get, they're all dirty.
Think: broken/missing lids, hinges, handles, wheels; the can having been run into/over by a car; or the can being stolen. (If your neighbor's can is stolen, and he takes yours, it's not like you can use his.)
Because getting your iTunes downloads to play on stuff other than your iPod, without spending time burning a CDRW, is not criminal. You've paid for it, after all.
You must have missed the quote I was responding to, entirely.
Does wanting to format-shift my paid content easily constitute dishonesty?
Which is why it's important for as many honest people as possible to download this and check it out. Then the criminals might just slip under the noise floor.
as far as videotape recorders go, have you had the read and write heads properly aligned? Are you using real, professional recorder models, or crappy consumer models? With proper alignment, professional and even decent quality consumer video recorders should make tapes that are interchangeable without real degradation. If you're serious about archiving, a professional or at least digital format is probably what you want, also, not VHS.
Oliver Sacks isn't dead, but he is a scentist. Not the kind of scientist you automatically think of when you hear the word, but he's a clinical neurologist. And this book is entertaining, while sneaking in a lot of facts about science and history that kids will think are cool.
So, even if it's not strictly a biography, you should consider buying it, anyway. Here, read the review on/.
The original Napster program, as a groundbreaking P2P app, certainly was very important in changing the way the Internet is used. The website itself, however, was just a place to download the program.
If a music-sharing site needs to be on the list, the original MP3.com is a better choice.
they care about them and if they ever decided that someone using the software was bothering them then they would go file a lawsuit.
Isn't there some counterargument against them that says if they only selectively try to enforce a general contract clause against some entities, then it's not really enforceable? Especially if the policy in practice is not to enforce it?
Slashdot Mirror
He's the one accused of murdering her! Without there even being a body or obvious evidence she's dead! (Or at least not that we've been told)
Also, I can't imagine that all of her friends were made only after the divorce. Surely some people knew them both.
If they don't want to support him at least until there's real evidence otherwise... bah! That's heartless.
now that you mention it, anyone notice how the friends in the guestbook say support her family and her boyfriend, but don't say support Hans, too?
They must either already believe him to be guilty, or there's enough spite involved among her friends that if he's innocent, they still don't think he should get support, just because he's the ex.
It was a gimmick to get people to try the search engine, and hopefully like it. However, once people tried it for a week or so, they either liked it or moved back to their favorite engine, just sending enough searches A9's way to keep the discount up. So it was still costing revenue but not really generating new active users out of those signed up for the discount. A case could be made, therefore, that the cost per user continued to rise over time.
You can never be sure someone is reformed; you only know when they fall back to their old ways, assuming you catch them.
Part of this is because of the ideological mindset; the ones who claim they did it all as a game still often think it's fun, and they seem to lack the subconscious barriers to antisocial behavior that normall tell people that it's destructive behavior. They may "go legit," but how do sociopaths grow ethical and/or moral senses?
These people still like manipulating people through different levels of social engineering. What says people like this won't just try to find other ways to screw with things or people, but in legal ways? What about those egos? Who really wants that in an organization?
If I were going to consider any former black hats at all, it would be those who did things like make spyware on contract in Eastern Europe, in order to feed their families, or something similar. I'd still be leery, but they at least have a situation of duress to claim. If I'm satisfied that they otherwise meet the profile of people I like to hire, I'd just have to worry that they feel rewarded enough that they can take care of their families. But I'd have that worry about all my employees.
Yes, yes, but you have to think about it in order to get that level. It's easier to ridicule someone as getting their news from a comedian, than an ostensibly serious and objective news organization. They can even trot out the "you may think it's funny, but our boys are over there dying to protect your right to laugh" line, to hijack some people emotionally.
Nah, they're just playing to another target demo for ad revenue. Poor people and other people who otherwise don't have cable or satellite or internet access will likely never see it.
If it was on broadcast TV, where someone impressionable might come across it and become enlightened (or corrupted, depending on POV), then it would be more of a threat.
As it is, since Stewart and Colbert have most of the audience for this sort of thing, it's easy for conservatives to pigeonhole people who share that sentiment, too. Just like we make fun of O'Reilly and Fox News. Only they find it easy to point, because everyone knows the Daily Show is not meant to be taken seriously, but, sadly, Fox convinces many people to take them seriously.
While looking for the Fort Worth Water Gardens, I found this.
Note the lake's color range, not just its unnatural appearance. Now zoom out a couple times.
They've obviously retouched the lake in the closer images, because you can see evidence of dodging and burning.
How does banning batteries for two laptop brands equal banning the laptops themselves?
1) Can plastic batteries be recycled, and if they aren't, how long is it projected to take for them to degrade in a landfill?
2) How long until all plastics are banned from commercial flights, because they might be illicit power sources for bombs or weapons?
(I'm not telling which is the serious question)
This sucks, being forced to upgrade to keep using the store.
They came out with a Sims 2:New Orleans expansion?
How ironic -- when I saw the headline, I thought, "why don't they post the one that was news a couple days ago, about how it runs better than a Sony?"
That's how off this submission was.
That's because the other 34,999 of us fans have already seen them all, but who pays attention to titles?
I recently started receiving ads through regular mail about online sports betting, thick "betting guides," and the like.
I don't gamble. I wouldn't even know what the terms of a bet meant, or how to make one. I certainly don't have any money. I live in Dallas, where these arrests have been taking place. So far, they're just targeting site owners, but you can bet* they'll go after people who use the sites, eventually.
Am I being set up?
You laugh, but seriously, I wonder.
* not a real bet.
Think: broken/missing lids, hinges, handles, wheels; the can having been run into/over by a car; or the can being stolen. (If your neighbor's can is stolen, and he takes yours, it's not like you can use his.)
I can't believe nobody else remembers this other event happening just months ago. It ended with arrests and stuff.
You must have missed the quote I was responding to, entirely.
I never said that, as you surely know.
Why would honest people want to help criminals?
as far as videotape recorders go, have you had the read and write heads properly aligned? Are you using real, professional recorder models, or crappy consumer models?
With proper alignment, professional and even decent quality consumer video recorders should make tapes that are interchangeable without real degradation.
If you're serious about archiving, a professional or at least digital format is probably what you want, also, not VHS.
It's a walkin', talkin', honeycomb!
Oliver Sacks isn't dead, but he is a scentist. Not the kind of scientist you automatically think of when you hear the word, but he's a clinical neurologist. And this book is entertaining, while sneaking in a lot of facts about science and history that kids will think are cool.
/.
So, even if it's not strictly a biography, you should consider buying it, anyway. Here, read the review on
Okay. I bought my PPC Mini last June, and I'm pretty sure it came preloaded back then. But you get the idea anyway
The original Napster program, as a groundbreaking P2P app, certainly was very important in changing the way the Internet is used.
The website itself, however, was just a place to download the program.
If a music-sharing site needs to be on the list, the original MP3.com is a better choice.
That's no sillier than all the schools in the US that claim to be "drug-free zones."
In other words, hahahahahah. sigh
Isn't there some counterargument against them that says if they only selectively try to enforce a general contract clause against some entities, then it's not really enforceable? Especially if the policy in practice is not to enforce it?