Other points nonwithstanding, "rescued" and "paid a ransom for" are somewhat different terms, and should not be used interchangeably.
And the "checkpoint assasination" seems to be rather ineffective then, as she was taken to a hospital by the US soldiers, instead of being given a shot to the head, as one would assume you would want to do, if given orders to assasinate.
The hell?
They have satellite photos of the area. It's one of the things that make the road secure. You don't exactly have a satellite follow a single car. They do monitor certain areas, such as the one that that car was going through.
The other thing that makes the road secure are checkpoints. Ones that you should expect to encounter.
Your knee-jerk responces are indicative of groupthink, and nothing more.
Well no actualy.
Ads are usualy javascripts placed in the site code, that call another server or file. Ad blocking software stops that call from being made, so what happens is that you load up and use the bandwidth of the site you are viewing, but the advertisers never get the call from your browser and do not register the view. So the only party actualy being hurt is the website. The advertisers don't care, they will get their share of views from other users. The website on the other hand, banks for a view on the banner for a load of their bandwidth.
but if you used a credit card or bought online, often they have records of that, and when you present your credit card at the ticket booth they can (sometimes for a minor fee) re-issue you your ticket and let you in.
I'd say that a restaurant may deny service to a hispanic person as an individual, because they feel they have some reason to do so, but they may not deny service to hispanic people as a whole.
So the difference is, is this site being denied hosting because they are arabic/islamic, or because of issues with this particular site/their message/etc? Unless we can find a policy of denying hosting to sites of arabic/islamic origin, the latter should be assumed, as we are discussing a specific case, and not a string of such occurences.
And they would have full right to shut down the KKK site, as much as they have a right to shut this one down. They are not required to facilitate anyones free speech, and certanly should not be forced to do so.
I did, did you?
Any hosting company has one of the "and we can cancel it at any time for any reason" clauses in the contract you sign when you get hosting. The only thing the company has to do is refund any money paid for service that they haven't used yet.
Their Acceptable Use Policy is written to let them terminate at will, containing even such things as "Internet Etiquette" and certanly has the "Company reserves the right to terminate service without notice for any violations of the AUP" bit in it. It's standard CYA procedure for any webhost.
So if The Planet doesn't like how their soapbox is being used, they can yank it out from under the speaker.
Well it says all the ISP really has to say there. That they reached a decision to terminate hosting, as they have a right to do.
I run a small hosting company, and I personaly see nothing wrong with deciding whether I want to host someone or not, based on my own judgment.
It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech, and more with the hosting company deciding they do not want to be associated with a particular site/message. Every hosting company, small ones like mine included have the right not to do business with someone, at their own discretion.
Why do people immediately think "government cencorship" here? A business has a right to decide how it wants to do business.
They still have their freedom of speech, but I do not have to rent them their soapbox if I don't want to.
Re:Why don't you just say he's an animation artist
on
New Yorker on Miyazaki
·
· Score: 1
I'd say if you think anime is a "crudely-drawn slide show" then you probably have never seen anything more then a Dragonball Z episode flashing on a tv somewhere, and used that to form your well rounded opinion. Hayao Miyazaki's works are certanly art, and when viewed objectively are as far from being crudely-drawn as most anything can be.
BTW if you hold your view so strongly, then why post as anonymous? The parent deserves to be modded troll. And not for the views on anime, but for the insults oh so cleverly hidden inside the lines.
Thats rather sad really. They are claiming lost profit as if it is the fault of craiglist, not just them loosing out in competition.
When have you seen "LA Times blames NY Times for a 30 Million dollar revenue loss"? It makes no sense. It's a (mostly) free market, and Craigslist is in competition with the papers for it. Their model works better, so they get the traffic, and the newspapers dont.
Oh please.
Sure, the CIA has no compuction about funding Yuschenko, no more then the Kremlin has about funding Yanukovich. But to say that the entire thing is purely engineered by the CIA is pure fiction.
If you have seen the videos of people voting for Yuschenko being beaten and worse, in addition to all the massive voter fraud going on, you'd realize that this entire thing has been brewing for a bit now.
Less then half the country does, the rest doesn't, it's a rather clear divide.
I am from Ukraine, and though I don't live there anymore, from speaking to people living there, they are quite determined to fight in this case, and it is not because the CIA told them to.
That sort of thing would probably be pretty useless here in NYC.
The problem is, that a lot of networks -seem- open, but require a login once you are connected, and around here, you are never far from a signal, so I just never found it worthwhile to plunk down the $30 or so they ask for them.
The only one of them that I find interesting is the Canary one, which actualy has an LCD that shows you the SSID of the network. But I am not sure it's worth the $50 to me, but it's a much better value then any of the "if the light blinks, you got WiFi" ones.
Re:These have already led to a recount in Ohio
on
Buggy Voting Machines
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Of course they were. It was obvious voter fraud, since he voted twice.
I'd say 1 is somewhat likelier, and not because I'm a rose-glasses wearing optimist.
I feel that we as a species (not neccesarily as individuals) will always choose the path of least resistance, and when all you want is provided, who can be bothered with a revolt? And people tend to be a lot more agreeable, when they have less to worry about.
And you know that you are as much of a geek as the guy who converted it into binary, if you went through the trouble of converting it back to english to read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Other points nonwithstanding, "rescued" and "paid a ransom for" are somewhat different terms, and should not be used interchangeably. And the "checkpoint assasination" seems to be rather ineffective then, as she was taken to a hospital by the US soldiers, instead of being given a shot to the head, as one would assume you would want to do, if given orders to assasinate.
The hell? They have satellite photos of the area. It's one of the things that make the road secure. You don't exactly have a satellite follow a single car. They do monitor certain areas, such as the one that that car was going through. The other thing that makes the road secure are checkpoints. Ones that you should expect to encounter. Your knee-jerk responces are indicative of groupthink, and nothing more.
Well no actualy. Ads are usualy javascripts placed in the site code, that call another server or file. Ad blocking software stops that call from being made, so what happens is that you load up and use the bandwidth of the site you are viewing, but the advertisers never get the call from your browser and do not register the view. So the only party actualy being hurt is the website. The advertisers don't care, they will get their share of views from other users. The website on the other hand, banks for a view on the banner for a load of their bandwidth.
but if you used a credit card or bought online, often they have records of that, and when you present your credit card at the ticket booth they can (sometimes for a minor fee) re-issue you your ticket and let you in.
I'd say that a restaurant may deny service to a hispanic person as an individual, because they feel they have some reason to do so, but they may not deny service to hispanic people as a whole. So the difference is, is this site being denied hosting because they are arabic/islamic, or because of issues with this particular site/their message/etc? Unless we can find a policy of denying hosting to sites of arabic/islamic origin, the latter should be assumed, as we are discussing a specific case, and not a string of such occurences. And they would have full right to shut down the KKK site, as much as they have a right to shut this one down. They are not required to facilitate anyones free speech, and certanly should not be forced to do so.
I did, did you? Any hosting company has one of the "and we can cancel it at any time for any reason" clauses in the contract you sign when you get hosting. The only thing the company has to do is refund any money paid for service that they haven't used yet. Their Acceptable Use Policy is written to let them terminate at will, containing even such things as "Internet Etiquette" and certanly has the "Company reserves the right to terminate service without notice for any violations of the AUP" bit in it. It's standard CYA procedure for any webhost. So if The Planet doesn't like how their soapbox is being used, they can yank it out from under the speaker.
Well it says all the ISP really has to say there. That they reached a decision to terminate hosting, as they have a right to do.
I run a small hosting company, and I personaly see nothing wrong with deciding whether I want to host someone or not, based on my own judgment.
It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech, and more with the hosting company deciding they do not want to be associated with a particular site/message. Every hosting company, small ones like mine included have the right not to do business with someone, at their own discretion.
Why do people immediately think "government cencorship" here? A business has a right to decide how it wants to do business.
They still have their freedom of speech, but I do not have to rent them their soapbox if I don't want to.
I'd say if you think anime is a "crudely-drawn slide show" then you probably have never seen anything more then a Dragonball Z episode flashing on a tv somewhere, and used that to form your well rounded opinion. Hayao Miyazaki's works are certanly art, and when viewed objectively are as far from being crudely-drawn as most anything can be.
BTW if you hold your view so strongly, then why post as anonymous? The parent deserves to be modded troll. And not for the views on anime, but for the insults oh so cleverly hidden inside the lines.
Thats rather sad really. They are claiming lost profit as if it is the fault of craiglist, not just them loosing out in competition.
When have you seen "LA Times blames NY Times for a 30 Million dollar revenue loss"? It makes no sense. It's a (mostly) free market, and Craigslist is in competition with the papers for it. Their model works better, so they get the traffic, and the newspapers dont.
They really have no place to whine here at all.
Oh please. Sure, the CIA has no compuction about funding Yuschenko, no more then the Kremlin has about funding Yanukovich. But to say that the entire thing is purely engineered by the CIA is pure fiction. If you have seen the videos of people voting for Yuschenko being beaten and worse, in addition to all the massive voter fraud going on, you'd realize that this entire thing has been brewing for a bit now. Less then half the country does, the rest doesn't, it's a rather clear divide. I am from Ukraine, and though I don't live there anymore, from speaking to people living there, they are quite determined to fight in this case, and it is not because the CIA told them to.
That sort of thing would probably be pretty useless here in NYC.
The problem is, that a lot of networks -seem- open, but require a login once you are connected, and around here, you are never far from a signal, so I just never found it worthwhile to plunk down the $30 or so they ask for them.
The only one of them that I find interesting is the Canary one, which actualy has an LCD that shows you the SSID of the network. But I am not sure it's worth the $50 to me, but it's a much better value then any of the "if the light blinks, you got WiFi" ones.
Of course they were. It was obvious voter fraud, since he voted twice.
They'd have to use giant robots to enforce it then.
What if it landed funny and broke something?
We'd point and laugh?
I'd say 1 is somewhat likelier, and not because I'm a rose-glasses wearing optimist. I feel that we as a species (not neccesarily as individuals) will always choose the path of least resistance, and when all you want is provided, who can be bothered with a revolt? And people tend to be a lot more agreeable, when they have less to worry about.
To simplify this for you:
Battle Angel != Dark Angel
I suppose the kennedy family may see it more as a simulation of running your own concentration camp, rather then your average WWII FPS game.
you'd have all the ice you need tho'
And this explains the mystery as to why there was no duct tape on mars.
Just about anything with a cattle-prod attached would do then :)
And you know that you are as much of a geek as the guy who converted it into binary, if you went through the trouble of converting it back to english to read it.
Or so you thought.
I'd guess as an example of a failure, but thats just my take.
;)
Hard to sense sarcasm online without the smiley
Why does that comment -always- get modded +5 Funny? Shouldn't it be overrated by now?
and have him call everyone "baka" ...