Yeah, those French that helped you gain independence and gifted you the Statue of Liberty. A sure sign of hate. What? They are ancient history? So is two World Wars.
But don't worry, the activities of the NSA are fixing the German's opinion of the United States, real quick
The French don't hate Americans. They just aren't helplessly enamoured by them. Americans don't understand the difference.
I'm happy to admit I've missed something here, as the description given about how it would be used in actual practice is not at all clear to me.
Am I correct in thinking that this does not remove the need for a password, it just means you need to match up the blobs with the descriptions and supply the password?
In which case, interesting idea, but very laborious. And a description you give on one day for blobs may completely elude you the next.
If you do not enter a google account you cannot download anything (even the free stuff) from Google Play.
That's fine if you never have any need for anything that isn't installed by default, but most people want to add to that. Or you want to get updates on the apps you do have. Once that Google Account is in there, even if it is for that one purpose, you'll find it a constant fight to keep things from being synced to it. Because it is the default action for practically everything, and is often a hidden default, you have to search it out on the settings somewhere, So it's not uncommon to find something has started uploaded your personal info within seconds of it being installed, before you even get the chance to stop it.
Course Google isn't alone with this. Many other apps that require accounts are equally eager to con you into allowing them to plunder your data. Some keep coming back to nag you about it, no matter how often you say no.
"Sure as hell" and "sure as shit" have no meaning either, right?
Well that's the point. Because they are totally meaningless as they stand, you know to look elsewhere to find the meaning. But omitting a "not" does not make "could care less" meaningless. It means something very definite, and the exact opposite of what is intended.
The idea that it's a shortened version doesn't stand up. It simply isn't said that way with the required intonation or timing. People say it because the phrase has become a meaningless, something said without any thought to what it breaks down to actually meaning. Which is fine, but it leaves you wondering what else are they saying by rote without thinking? It's a good way of encouraging me to ignore you, because I'll never be sure you mean or understand what you are actually saying.
I wouldn't call the anti-Catholic aspect a "vague undertone". It was central to the whole affair and central to why it ended up being celebrated every year. It started out with an effigy of the Pope on the fire, Fawkes only got substituted later.
So you're blaming India for being poorer than America, with lower wages, lower standard of living and lower costs of living? Interesting spin on things. Damn you, poor person. Just quit being poor already! Why can't you demand a bigger wage, with bigger houses, cars and TVs, like the rest of us?
1. So what does "spending the expense of regular ammo" mean?? Cops have a hard time spending money? Are they misers? Did you actually mean to write "afford the expense of regular ammo"?
2. It matters that you started out wittering on about the cop firing it from their gun. Thus demonstrating you did not RTFA. Changing that to wittering about the batmobile won't change that.
3. It's the BBC, UK related news, paid by UK TV licence holders, for UK TV licence holders. If you are in the UK there are no adverts. So the BBC are not motivated by attracting UK readers of UK news to adverts. If you are seeing adverts then, what the hey, you're getting a world class news service paid for by UK TV licence holders for free. You're welcome.
4. Which changes nothing about you originally saying "This won't go to cops" because you did not RTFA.
5. Keep squirming, the fact remains you did not RTFA but felt arrogant enough to pile in with your totally uninformed scorn. The mark of a real idiot is he doesn't know when he knows nothing.
Never mind excelling at all three roles, even if they could excel at them all, no-one has time to excel in all three roles. You don't become a great coder without spending a lot of time coding. If you spend a lot of time coding, you do not have enough time to delegate/lead (or what ever else they do) to be a great businessman. They are just fundamentally incompatible hoggers of your time. You cannot do both.
Why is this nonsense modded insightful? This idiot clearly didn't RTFA.
1. Go look up the meaning of "expending". It's not whatever the hell you think it is. 2. The bullet is not fired by a gun on the cop's person, or from their gun. 3. It's the BBC. They have no ads. 4. It is already in use by cops. 5. You're an idiot.
You, the driver, are responsible for the legal operation of your vehicle. If your vehicle's instruments are incorrect and you get a ticket then equipment malfunction is no defense. Otherwise no-one would ever pay any traffic related fine, because they could always blame their car. I didn't stop in time because my brakes are broken. I didn't indicate because my indicator is bust. I'm disturbing the peace because my muffler has a hole. I drove at 50 because my speedometer is wrong. Not my fault.
If it is the car's manufacturer's fault, or your car mechanic's, then that is something you can take up with them, legally if you like. But you're still getting the speeding ticket.
You have offered your opinion to this discussion thread - to what purpose? One would think that by now we have enough to fill the internet that no-one will ever look at again.
The purpose, I suppose, is that sometimes the what's dug up offers something new. A new story or idea. Sometimes radically so. But you have to go through a lot of the same-old mundanes to get to them.
The jury is still out on your opinion, but I'm thinking it's part of the mundane. But thanks for contributing.
You are attempting the same dishonest trick many people try in internet discussions. I didn't say "same treatment", I said "some of the same treatment".
Comparing two different things is not saying they are they are exactly equivalent in all possible ways. It is saying they have some similarities that may help in understanding one or other. If they were exactly the same, then they would be the exact same thing, and noting a comparison would be pointless and redundant.
You've been taken in by the whole religious wrapping on what is essentially political\economic friction. It suits those in charge for people to believe it's about religion (even if they claim it isn't) because that way they won't look for the real reasons. Religion is just a convenient tool to manipulate/motivate/con the masses.
The ones in charge are ultimately motivated by the same basic things that motivate everyone; ownership and access to resources. i.e. Money and power. If you want plenty of both, but don't yet have much in the way of either, religion is an excellent way of getting people to do what you want. Not the only way, but a very good way.
The solution is obvious; either trust no-one, do everything yourself. Or trust others.
With the former, you'll never ever get caught out by trusting something/someone not worthy of it. But it's a recipe for a very laborious, paranoid, miserable and lonely life.
Seriously? The US is in the middle of seriously pissing off all its allies, and your response is simply "We don't care! We'll do what we want and you can't stop us!"
And people use to wonder why the Middle Eastern countries hated America. This is Europe getting some of the same treatment.
== gnasher719 == gnasher719 is a slashdot contributer who came up with a genius idea for Wikipedia in October 2013 that no-one had thought of.
== Criticism == Others called his idea dumb for obvious reasons. If a politician wants to publish "the truth according to them" then it's not hard to publish it on their own website. That then can be cited in Wikipedia appropriately.
== Truth according to gnasher719 == "My idea is stupid. I accept that now. I also smell of elderberries and got my name from my habit of gnawing my feet." - someone who claims to be gnasher719 but could just as easily be a random guy on the internet
No. 4K with gold plated pixels is the equivalent of Monster Cable.
Why settle for 'off' pixels and 'on' pixels, when you can get gold 'on' pixels that are more vibrantly on than ordinary pixels, and when they're off, they are really, really gold off?
Like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopaedia. It is not a newspaper. It is not a consumer forum. It is not a substitute for a company's own website. That means it does not publish original material. It does not provide a platform for anyone to either raise, or respond to, criticism. It only publishes a summation of what other reliable sources have already published.
If a company wishes to release an "Official Response" then their own website is the place to publish this. It should then be picked up by reliable sources, after which Wikipedia can reflect it. If it isn't picked up by secondary reliable sources then, at a pinch, the company website can be used as a source.
But the idea that Wikipedia should be some kind of official channel for companies to respond to issues is every bit as stupid as suggesting that it should be a channel for consumers to raise them.
Young people also have little in the way of life experience that allows them to differentiate between "can we do this" and "should we do this".
Result; no qualms about implementing things on a technical basis without consideration to the social/moral consequences.
And before you vote me down; I'm not suggesting young people are less morally or socially concerned than anyone else. Just that, plainly, they do not have as much life experience. Many issues that the likes of FB raise are not new just because the technology is. It's the same old struggle between individual rights and the demands of big companies and authorities.
Slashdot Mirror
"put it to you this way: you've seen how things work here. Do you really want the same people deciding whether or not your mother can have surgery?"
Oh if only everything was a simple as the private sector!
"Have they paid us lots of money in the past? Can they afford to give us a lot of money now? No? No surgery for mother then. Next case!"
Yeah, those French that helped you gain independence and gifted you the Statue of Liberty. A sure sign of hate. What? They are ancient history? So is two World Wars.
But don't worry, the activities of the NSA are fixing the German's opinion of the United States, real quick
The French don't hate Americans. They just aren't helplessly enamoured by them. Americans don't understand the difference.
No. That's just the English.
I'm happy to admit I've missed something here, as the description given about how it would be used in actual practice is not at all clear to me.
Am I correct in thinking that this does not remove the need for a password, it just means you need to match up the blobs with the descriptions and supply the password?
In which case, interesting idea, but very laborious. And a description you give on one day for blobs may completely elude you the next.
If you do not enter a google account you cannot download anything (even the free stuff) from Google Play.
That's fine if you never have any need for anything that isn't installed by default, but most people want to add to that. Or you want to get updates on the apps you do have. Once that Google Account is in there, even if it is for that one purpose, you'll find it a constant fight to keep things from being synced to it. Because it is the default action for practically everything, and is often a hidden default, you have to search it out on the settings somewhere, So it's not uncommon to find something has started uploaded your personal info within seconds of it being installed, before you even get the chance to stop it.
Course Google isn't alone with this. Many other apps that require accounts are equally eager to con you into allowing them to plunder your data. Some keep coming back to nag you about it, no matter how often you say no.
You'll find that a fair percentage of the UK have no problem agreeing cricket is slow and boring.
"test" or not.
"Sure as hell" and "sure as shit" have no meaning either, right?
Well that's the point. Because they are totally meaningless as they stand, you know to look elsewhere to find the meaning. But omitting a "not" does not make "could care less" meaningless. It means something very definite, and the exact opposite of what is intended.
The idea that it's a shortened version doesn't stand up. It simply isn't said that way with the required intonation or timing. People say it because the phrase has become a meaningless, something said without any thought to what it breaks down to actually meaning. Which is fine, but it leaves you wondering what else are they saying by rote without thinking? It's a good way of encouraging me to ignore you, because I'll never be sure you mean or understand what you are actually saying.
I wouldn't call the anti-Catholic aspect a "vague undertone". It was central to the whole affair and central to why it ended up being celebrated every year. It started out with an effigy of the Pope on the fire, Fawkes only got substituted later.
So you're blaming India for being poorer than America, with lower wages, lower standard of living and lower costs of living? Interesting spin on things. Damn you, poor person. Just quit being poor already! Why can't you demand a bigger wage, with bigger houses, cars and TVs, like the rest of us?
Wouldn't it be terrible if anyone deliberately put bugs into things so they could later be bribed to fix it.
I'm sure no-one would dream of doing that.
DST makes a difference depending on your latitude. Time zones are longitudinal. Two entirely different things.
If you live in a low latitude you maybe don't see much point to DST, but the further you go from the equator, the more sense it makes.
1. So what does "spending the expense of regular ammo" mean?? Cops have a hard time spending money? Are they misers? Did you actually mean to write "afford the expense of regular ammo"?
2. It matters that you started out wittering on about the cop firing it from their gun. Thus demonstrating you did not RTFA. Changing that to wittering about the batmobile won't change that.
3. It's the BBC, UK related news, paid by UK TV licence holders, for UK TV licence holders. If you are in the UK there are no adverts. So the BBC are not motivated by attracting UK readers of UK news to adverts. If you are seeing adverts then, what the hey, you're getting a world class news service paid for by UK TV licence holders for free. You're welcome.
4. Which changes nothing about you originally saying "This won't go to cops" because you did not RTFA.
5. Keep squirming, the fact remains you did not RTFA but felt arrogant enough to pile in with your totally uninformed scorn. The mark of a real idiot is he doesn't know when he knows nothing.
Never mind excelling at all three roles, even if they could excel at them all, no-one has time to excel in all three roles. You don't become a great coder without spending a lot of time coding. If you spend a lot of time coding, you do not have enough time to delegate/lead (or what ever else they do) to be a great businessman. They are just fundamentally incompatible hoggers of your time. You cannot do both.
Why is this nonsense modded insightful? This idiot clearly didn't RTFA.
1. Go look up the meaning of "expending". It's not whatever the hell you think it is.
2. The bullet is not fired by a gun on the cop's person, or from their gun.
3. It's the BBC. They have no ads.
4. It is already in use by cops.
5. You're an idiot.
You, the driver, are responsible for the legal operation of your vehicle. If your vehicle's instruments are incorrect and you get a ticket then equipment malfunction is no defense. Otherwise no-one would ever pay any traffic related fine, because they could always blame their car. I didn't stop in time because my brakes are broken. I didn't indicate because my indicator is bust. I'm disturbing the peace because my muffler has a hole. I drove at 50 because my speedometer is wrong. Not my fault.
If it is the car's manufacturer's fault, or your car mechanic's, then that is something you can take up with them, legally if you like. But you're still getting the speeding ticket.
You have offered your opinion to this discussion thread - to what purpose? One would think that by now we have enough to fill the internet that no-one will ever look at again.
The purpose, I suppose, is that sometimes the what's dug up offers something new. A new story or idea. Sometimes radically so. But you have to go through a lot of the same-old mundanes to get to them.
The jury is still out on your opinion, but I'm thinking it's part of the mundane. But thanks for contributing.
Except this is not a robber stealing your TV. This is an invited guest who is supposed to be a friend.
First thing you do is stop inviting them around your house.
You are attempting the same dishonest trick many people try in internet discussions. I didn't say "same treatment", I said "some of the same treatment".
Comparing two different things is not saying they are they are exactly equivalent in all possible ways. It is saying they have some similarities that may help in understanding one or other. If they were exactly the same, then they would be the exact same thing, and noting a comparison would be pointless and redundant.
You've been taken in by the whole religious wrapping on what is essentially political\economic friction. It suits those in charge for people to believe it's about religion (even if they claim it isn't) because that way they won't look for the real reasons. Religion is just a convenient tool to manipulate/motivate/con the masses.
The ones in charge are ultimately motivated by the same basic things that motivate everyone; ownership and access to resources. i.e. Money and power. If you want plenty of both, but don't yet have much in the way of either, religion is an excellent way of getting people to do what you want. Not the only way, but a very good way.
The solution is obvious; either trust no-one, do everything yourself. Or trust others.
With the former, you'll never ever get caught out by trusting something/someone not worthy of it. But it's a recipe for a very laborious, paranoid, miserable and lonely life.
Seriously? The US is in the middle of seriously pissing off all its allies, and your response is simply "We don't care! We'll do what we want and you can't stop us!"
And people use to wonder why the Middle Eastern countries hated America. This is Europe getting some of the same treatment.
== gnasher719 ==
gnasher719 is a slashdot contributer who came up with a genius idea for Wikipedia in October 2013 that no-one had thought of.
== Criticism ==
Others called his idea dumb for obvious reasons. If a politician wants to publish "the truth according to them" then it's not hard to publish it on their own website. That then can be cited in Wikipedia appropriately.
== Truth according to gnasher719 ==
"My idea is stupid. I accept that now. I also smell of elderberries and got my name from my habit of gnawing my feet." - someone who claims to be gnasher719 but could just as easily be a random guy on the internet
No. 4K with gold plated pixels is the equivalent of Monster Cable.
Why settle for 'off' pixels and 'on' pixels, when you can get gold 'on' pixels that are more vibrantly on than ordinary pixels, and when they're off, they are really, really gold off?
Like many people, you have a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. It is an encyclopaedia. It is not a newspaper. It is not a consumer forum. It is not a substitute for a company's own website. That means it does not publish original material. It does not provide a platform for anyone to either raise, or respond to, criticism. It only publishes a summation of what other reliable sources have already published.
If a company wishes to release an "Official Response" then their own website is the place to publish this. It should then be picked up by reliable sources, after which Wikipedia can reflect it. If it isn't picked up by secondary reliable sources then, at a pinch, the company website can be used as a source.
But the idea that Wikipedia should be some kind of official channel for companies to respond to issues is every bit as stupid as suggesting that it should be a channel for consumers to raise them.
Young people also have little in the way of life experience that allows them to differentiate between "can we do this" and "should we do this".
Result; no qualms about implementing things on a technical basis without consideration to the social/moral consequences.
And before you vote me down; I'm not suggesting young people are less morally or socially concerned than anyone else. Just that, plainly, they do not have as much life experience. Many issues that the likes of FB raise are not new just because the technology is. It's the same old struggle between individual rights and the demands of big companies and authorities.