Cause lord knows if you add the instability of web interfaces to MS's track record, you're in for lots and lots of "save now" or risk losing your document.
The best part about going web-based is that burried in the ToS, I bet there's something about "can't assure constant connection". This leaves MS plenty of room to sa, "not our problem" and take your money anyway.
Your government has silently suspended your constition. What are you going to do about it?
Go read the Constitituion. Go read the pdf posted. This has nothing to do with spying on internal matters. This is only about spying on international traffic. If this was used to spy on two american citizens who were in the USA, THEN it would be suspending the Constitution.
Personally, I don't mind the USA eavesdropping on ALL international calls. Just as they don't start tapping domestic ones.
Air Force: "We have some new, less-than-lethal, weapons. And, we'd like to test them out. Since people will get all bent out of place by us testing them on animals, we thought we'd give ya'll the opportunity to volunteer.
Crowd:...
Air Force: "We'll pay you!"
Crowd:...
Air Force: "No takers? Oh, guess we have to test it on animals then. We don't want to "accidentially" kill someone because the weapon wasn't tested first."
they actually DID instill critical thinking skills in us
Next time I shall endeavor to use my [sarcasim] tag. My apologies.
Fine. Prove my statement wrong.
Actually, I believe the burden of proof would be on you to prove there there are NO environmentalists that call for a reduction in economic activity. Just as the burden of proof would be on the grand poster for his equally unsubstantiated claim. I just wanted to point out the difficulty of disproving an unsubstantiated claim with yet another unsubstantiated claim.
calling a statement stupid and calling a person stupid.
Calling a thought out(if not logical) statement stupid means that you are calling their thought process stupid. If you assume that people are smart/stupid based upon their cognative ability, you did call the GP stupid, wether or not that was you intention.
[emphasis mine]Weird, because when I was in school in the 80s, they were telling us about global warming (and the ozone hole). Of course global warming has been warned about since then, non-stop.
I believe that you should read his post more closely. You missed by a few years. And of course, the reason for everyone to go to school is so that they can learn how not to think critically and no one with a political agenda ever lies.
[emphasis mine]Yes there are natural cycles, although the amount of carbon in the atmosphere seems to coniencide with global warming treads (as CO2 amounts rise, so does the temp). We're now pumping carbon into the atmosphere, more than has ever been present in the atmosphere. It stands to reason that more carbon will help warm the earth. To deny that is foolish.
As I was once told in a logic class. For logic to work, you have to show that each step in your reasoning is true. Starting from a fallacy, you can prove anything. Also, it's a major jump to go from "seems to coniencide" to "causes". Based on that, it "stands to reason" that the rest of this statement should be viewed as an opinion, not a logical deduction.
This is perhaps one of the stupidist comments I've ever heard. They aren't trying to stop / reduce economic growth, they want that growth to happen in an environmentally friendly way. You seem to forget that something which slows growth in one area may trigger larger growth in others. For example, if you need some kind of filter on your smoke stacks, someone needs to build those.
You want to conserve only when it doesn't inconvience you in some way. I assume you have similar attitudes as those that tried to justify dumping any chemical waste into rivers. We've cleaned those up, and the economy hasn't tanked. Get a grip.
Reacting to a statement you see as outrageously false doesn't mean that you can reply and calling someone "stupid." His opinion is just as valid as yours, espescially since neither it firmly rooted in hard evidence.
It has simply entered into a different phase of it's life. As a previous poster speculated on, the "market" has reached a saturation point. Soon(the next 2-3 years) MP3 Players, like many other electronic goods will enter into their "Commodity" phase.
Also, with what was a roaring(in spite of gas prices) economy, we've now passed the peak of the economic rise...(economy 101) Maninly this peak is due to the federal board and it's raising of intrest rates, but the economy as a hole has cooled. The first thing to go during ANY economic downturn is what some people call "Frivolous Spending".
Why must you troll? The correct order is: Kirk, Picard, Sisco, Janeway, Archer. That also sums up the order of the shows as well. But I have to say that they should now just let this franchise die and we can all forget about watching it as reruns as kids in the 70's. Dr who on the otherhand...
SULU, then Archer. Sulu was only a captain for one move and came across better.
Well, I always considered it a Pox, but if they want to upgrade it to a cancer, that's fine with me! Just means it will be attacked more forcefully when it's finally found.
It's not that it's a "shaky" piece of hardware, per se. It's just there are SO MANY points of failure, and after a few really bad problems, they've learned to be almost overly cautious with every failure.
An electrical supply on the ground goes down, you're fine. You just wait for a new one. An electical supply goes down in space, it's likely you're going to face serious challenges just staying alive.
I mean, they have The Matrix of all things. Does that mean that the Machines can be sued into submission by the MPAA for violating their trademarks/copyrights? If so... YEAH LAWYERS!
No, I'm just pointing out what everone wants to avoid... Or president MAY be a bad man, and he MAY not. However, my original point still stands... take the AC post I responded to and match it against damn near any attack against bush... You'll find striking similarities.
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like it's had the curse of consultants beat it down with their theory and "improvements"
Cause lord knows if you add the instability of web interfaces to MS's track record, you're in for lots and lots of "save now" or risk losing your document. The best part about going web-based is that burried in the ToS, I bet there's something about "can't assure constant connection". This leaves MS plenty of room to sa, "not our problem" and take your money anyway.
Personally, I don't mind the USA eavesdropping on ALL international calls. Just as they don't start tapping domestic ones.
Yet Another Incendiary Slashdot Headline.
...
...
Why don't they just say what this really is.
Air Force: "We have some new, less-than-lethal, weapons. And, we'd like to test them out. Since people will get all bent out of place by us testing them on animals, we thought we'd give ya'll the opportunity to volunteer.
Crowd:
Air Force: "We'll pay you!"
Crowd:
Air Force: "No takers? Oh, guess we have to test it on animals then. We don't want to "accidentially" kill someone because the weapon wasn't tested first."
Actually, I believe the burden of proof would be on you to prove there there are NO environmentalists that call for a reduction in economic activity. Just as the burden of proof would be on the grand poster for his equally unsubstantiated claim. I just wanted to point out the difficulty of disproving an unsubstantiated claim with yet another unsubstantiated claim.
Calling a thought out(if not logical) statement stupid means that you are calling their thought process stupid. If you assume that people are smart/stupid based upon their cognative ability, you did call the GP stupid, wether or not that was you intention.
As I was once told in a logic class. For logic to work, you have to show that each step in your reasoning is true. Starting from a fallacy, you can prove anything. Also, it's a major jump to go from "seems to coniencide" to "causes". Based on that, it "stands to reason" that the rest of this statement should be viewed as an opinion, not a logical deduction.
Reacting to a statement you see as outrageously false doesn't mean that you can reply and calling someone "stupid." His opinion is just as valid as yours, espescially since neither it firmly rooted in hard evidence.
Correction, it's only illegal if you don't have a license on the DRM ;)
It has simply entered into a different phase of it's life. As a previous poster speculated on, the "market" has reached a saturation point. Soon(the next 2-3 years) MP3 Players, like many other electronic goods will enter into their "Commodity" phase.
Also, with what was a roaring(in spite of gas prices) economy, we've now passed the peak of the economic rise...(economy 101) Maninly this peak is due to the federal board and it's raising of intrest rates, but the economy as a hole has cooled. The first thing to go during ANY economic downturn is what some people call "Frivolous Spending".
Too bad the clients are mostly as bright as the a match.... in a blizzard.... on Mt. Everest.
I file it right alongside Highlander 2.
The only way to "fix" the shuttle at this point is what they are doing. Using it as a bridge untill the newer, simpler crew modules are built.
It's not that it's a "shaky" piece of hardware, per se. It's just there are SO MANY points of failure, and after a few really bad problems, they've learned to be almost overly cautious with every failure.
An electrical supply on the ground goes down, you're fine. You just wait for a new one. An electical supply goes down in space, it's likely you're going to face serious challenges just staying alive.
The same place the find many of their repair parts now...
ON EBAY!!!!
And while it's funny, it's also sad.... Because it's true
is everyone saying... "What? I lost you there for a second." or "Your phone is acting funny, call me back when you're not in a bad area."
I mean, they have The Matrix of all things. Does that mean that the Machines can be sued into submission by the MPAA for violating their trademarks/copyrights? If so... YEAH LAWYERS!
No, I'm just pointing out what everone wants to avoid... Or president MAY be a bad man, and he MAY not. However, my original point still stands... take the AC post I responded to and match it against damn near any attack against bush... You'll find striking similarities.
That doesn't mean that I can't strike back with a highly virtrolic tactic when I feel that I'm being defamed.
Fuck you, you arrogant little asshole. If you said that to my face, one of us would be going to the hospital.
thank you for proving my final point