And obviously he was perfectly sincere. He couldn't possibly be just saying that to avoid further trouble with a company that's already shown itself to be irrational, petty, and vindictive.
That's for clockwise spiral galaxies. For anti-clockwise galaxies like ours, the left hand shunting rule is effect, so play begins at galactic center. Please see the third game from the final round of the the 2004 International Tournament if you need a refresher on shunting rules.
Uh no, the germ theory of disease was not "new and unproven" at the turn of the century. Pasteur's anthrax vaccine had already been available for three decades at that point. Listers work on antiseptics and sterilization even longer. Koch's postulates had been available for a decade. And even if it had been considered new and unproven at the time, Price continued to preach his theories until his death in the 1940's.
And, let's not forget that it's now suspected that gum disease can lead to heart attacks.
No, it's not suspected that gum disease can lead to heart attack. It's suspected that people with genetic dispositions toward excessive inflamatory response tend to be more suceptible to both disorders.
Looks like someone on the DC council saw one of those AT&T ads with the "unused minutes mom" and thinks the company has an actual physical hoard of unused minutes somewhere.
One particularly wacky example: in Pennsylvania, Mounds candy bars are considered candy and thus covered by the sales tax, whereas Almond Joy candy bars, because of the nuts, are considered food and exempt from the sales tax.
Father Guido Sarducci: It was. It was a real thrill, Bill. It was just terrific. But now I'm a little down. I have what my psychiatrist calls "post-papal depression."... Was such a high, you know, bein' on that tour and now it's over. Only thing I didn't like about the tour was the merchandising. They had, like, Pope T-shirts, Pope buttons, posters, banners, anything you can think of. You know, you can call me anti-materialistic if you want to but I just don't think it's right for somebody to make a T-shirt, put a person's picture on it, and then not to give that person part of the percentage of the profits.... I mean, look at this. It's amazing. [holds up a Pope T-shirt] If you buy T-shirt like this, it's not just for the T-shirt you buy it -- it's because the Pope is on it. If you just want a T-shirt, you can go to J. C. Penney's 'stead of going through all the traffic and crowds. But the Pope, from this T-shirt, I'll tell you what he got. He got absolutely zero. It was a rip-off. First, they did it to Mr. Bill, now the Pope.... [applause]
The article uses two phrase "open standards" and "publically-defined open standards" as though they are interchangable, even though there is a significant difference between the two. While making interfaces for IT publically available is a good thing, limiting everyone to a set of government defined standards is really a step backwards as it makes it impossible to innovate new interfaces.
30 years ago begin gay was more or less universally illegal, there was government enforced racial segregation in many parts of the country, there was official government censorship of books and movies, birth control was illegal, etc. This is not to say the ways that the government infringes out liberties now shouldn't be fought, but there wasn't some sort of golden age of freedom in the country several decades ago, particularly if you don't fit into the standard white middle class protestant lifestyle mold.
Whatever the police may tell you, their only interest is getting as many people arrested as possible. You shold never initiate a contact with law enforcement unless absolutely necessary, or you'll just make yourself the focus of their attention.
For those interested, an excellent lecture by Regent Law School professor James Duane and former Virginia Beach police officer George Bruch on why even innocent people shouldn't talk to cops:
Cities love taxes that fall primarily on people who aren't permanent residents of the city, because they can hike them up whenve they need extra cash without facing any consequences in the next election. This is why we should get rid of the 'one man one vote' idea where you can only vote where you're a permanent resident. You should be allowed to vote in any jurisdiction you pay taxes in. If Pittsburgh wants to tax students, then all those students should be allowed to vote in Pittsburgh municipal elections. If DC wants to charge a commuter tax on all the people from MD and Virginia who work there, they should all be allowed to vote in DC municipal elections.
Yes, but the ad motive still extends online. I imagine most of the 'paywalls' are less about getting subscription fees and more about making sure the articles are seen with the accompanying ads.
Seems the journalists in question want the best of both worlds: they want the steady and considerable income that comes with working for a major newspaper, but on the other hand they don't want to be involved with earning any of the revenue that makes that income possible.
Eventually they're going to have to choose one or the other (or the market will make the choice for them).
Considering how ridiculously broke our federal government is, I'm not sure in what sense it can continue to be said that it is "buying" or "paying" for things.
This story is yet another example of why many suspect that the real reason behind the Net Neutrality laws is to establish the FCC as regulator the internet, paving the way for future content control regulations.
They were often wrong, but far less often (and usually in less diastrous ways) than I was wrong. YMMV, but I can think of far more situations where I wish I had listened to them then where I wish I hadn't.
Yes, the numerous content restrictions on broadcast TV and radio, and the FCC's repeated attempts to extend similar restrictions to cable, satellite radio, and the internet. In fact I think that establishing an FCC regulatory interest over the internet in order to open the door for content control is the REAL purpose of this bill.
Once you establish that the FCC has the power to regulate the internet, even if the initial regulation is something you approve of, you're likely to find they start using that newly established power in ways you most decidedly do not approve of.
Calling in the government to deal with something that is really only a potential (rather than actual) problem at this point is liable to end up being a long term loss for internet freedom.
Slashdot Mirror
And obviously he was perfectly sincere. He couldn't possibly be just saying that to avoid further trouble with a company that's already shown itself to be irrational, petty, and vindictive.
That's for clockwise spiral galaxies. For anti-clockwise galaxies like ours, the left hand shunting rule is effect, so play begins at galactic center. Please see the third game from the final round of the the 2004 International Tournament if you need a refresher on shunting rules.
Uh no, the germ theory of disease was not "new and unproven" at the turn of the century. Pasteur's anthrax vaccine had already been available for three decades at that point. Listers work on antiseptics and sterilization even longer. Koch's postulates had been available for a decade. And even if it had been considered new and unproven at the time, Price continued to preach his theories until his death in the 1940's.
No, it's not suspected that gum disease can lead to heart attack. It's suspected that people with genetic dispositions toward excessive inflamatory response tend to be more suceptible to both disorders.
Weston Price also "found" that sugar causes tuberculosis and that root canals cause cancer. Please spare Dr. Price and his homeopathic dentistry crap.
Who'd have thought two professional writers would have a way of attracting public attention to things by writing about them!
Looks like someone on the DC council saw one of those AT&T ads with the "unused minutes mom" and thinks the company has an actual physical hoard of unused minutes somewhere.
One particularly wacky example: in Pennsylvania, Mounds candy bars are considered candy and thus covered by the sales tax, whereas Almond Joy candy bars, because of the nuts, are considered food and exempt from the sales tax.
The article uses two phrase "open standards" and "publically-defined open standards" as though they are interchangable, even though there is a significant difference between the two. While making interfaces for IT publically available is a good thing, limiting everyone to a set of government defined standards is really a step backwards as it makes it impossible to innovate new interfaces.
30 years ago begin gay was more or less universally illegal, there was government enforced racial segregation in many parts of the country, there was official government censorship of books and movies, birth control was illegal, etc. This is not to say the ways that the government infringes out liberties now shouldn't be fought, but there wasn't some sort of golden age of freedom in the country several decades ago, particularly if you don't fit into the standard white middle class protestant lifestyle mold.
No, they just have their own issues. Kaspersky, for example, has numerous ties to the KGB. I wouldn't trust them on anything security related.
If you reported it immediately to the authorities, you'll just end up like this man:
Man Arrested, Faces 5 Years In Jail For Reporting Firearm To Police
Whatever the police may tell you, their only interest is getting as many people arrested as possible. You shold never initiate a contact with law enforcement unless absolutely necessary, or you'll just make yourself the focus of their attention.
For those interested, an excellent lecture by Regent Law School professor James Duane and former Virginia Beach police officer George Bruch on why even innocent people shouldn't talk to cops:
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1
Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2
Cities love taxes that fall primarily on people who aren't permanent residents of the city, because they can hike them up whenve they need extra cash without facing any consequences in the next election. This is why we should get rid of the 'one man one vote' idea where you can only vote where you're a permanent resident. You should be allowed to vote in any jurisdiction you pay taxes in. If Pittsburgh wants to tax students, then all those students should be allowed to vote in Pittsburgh municipal elections. If DC wants to charge a commuter tax on all the people from MD and Virginia who work there, they should all be allowed to vote in DC municipal elections.
I don't see what's so hard about this Naxxaramas instance. It's completely empty!
Yes, but the ad motive still extends online. I imagine most of the 'paywalls' are less about getting subscription fees and more about making sure the articles are seen with the accompanying ads.
Seems the journalists in question want the best of both worlds: they want the steady and considerable income that comes with working for a major newspaper, but on the other hand they don't want to be involved with earning any of the revenue that makes that income possible. Eventually they're going to have to choose one or the other (or the market will make the choice for them).
If I have $50,000 in credit card debt, charging a $30 dinner isn't much either, but it's still rather odd to say I've really paid for it.
Considering how ridiculously broke our federal government is, I'm not sure in what sense it can continue to be said that it is "buying" or "paying" for things.
Just remember, when the government is your ISP then the government 1) controls what you're allowed to access 2) tracks what you do online
This story is yet another example of why many suspect that the real reason behind the Net Neutrality laws is to establish the FCC as regulator the internet, paving the way for future content control regulations.
No, you really don't. People who want to like sausage should avoid finding out how it gets made.
They were often wrong, but far less often (and usually in less diastrous ways) than I was wrong. YMMV, but I can think of far more situations where I wish I had listened to them then where I wish I hadn't.
Yes, the numerous content restrictions on broadcast TV and radio, and the FCC's repeated attempts to extend similar restrictions to cable, satellite radio, and the internet. In fact I think that establishing an FCC regulatory interest over the internet in order to open the door for content control is the REAL purpose of this bill.
Once you establish that the FCC has the power to regulate the internet, even if the initial regulation is something you approve of, you're likely to find they start using that newly established power in ways you most decidedly do not approve of. Calling in the government to deal with something that is really only a potential (rather than actual) problem at this point is liable to end up being a long term loss for internet freedom.