Or, you know, it could turn out that the people who'd be ok with paying a couple hundered dollars more for the phone (in some locations, it is illegal to sell phones with contract-only; they have to at least display a phone-only cost) STILL won't be allowed to use Wi-Fi unless they sign a contract, after which a piece of software enables Wi-Fi access. Knowing AT&T, I wouldn't put it past them.
Ooookay, what's wrong with saving the money to buy the TV, paying for the TV with a credit card, and paying off the balance at the end of the month? Just beause you *can* carry a balance doesn't mean you *have* to. Plus, if you're fortunate to have a cashback credit card, you get a little chunk of cash...back... on your purchase.
Ugh. Sorry, I was a bit careless with the closing tags. This should be easier to read.
Oh, so we should let them have sex with adults since they are 10 and let them drink since they are 5 because, hey who is Uncle Sam to say when they are mature enough.
Actually, I was referring to the mentality of "Think of the children" to justify any and all measure made in the name of protecting the young ones, but the instant the clock strikes midnight and the individual turns 18, they suddenly are judged to be capable of making all sorts of judgements that moments ago somehow couldn't.
You'd be surprised how enjoyable reading is...
Reading? I hope you're not reading any Heinlen, Crichton, Tolkien, or the like. If you are, wouldn't that be time better spent learning about and trying to advance quantum mechanics; or reading up on national health policy, and advocating reform of the tortuous system that is Medicare; or even examining what you can do about the ginormous loss of biodiversity in recent times? I enjoy reading. I adore it. But, frankly, unless you have a very narrow selection in your reading material, I'd be willing to bet that a not unconsiderable amount of your reading material isn't much better than network TV.
But the point was that some individuals are not responsible and some individuals are inherently vulnerable (children).
And my point was that the line drawn between those whom you assert to be "inherently vulnerable" and those who aren't is incredibly arbitrary. IIRC, individuals used to work, marry and bear children when they were 12, and held to be as just as responsible for themselves as I (early 20s) and you are (probably older than me). I'm not saying it was any better in the "golden, olden days"; rather, what is there to stop the line from being redrawn at 17 or 22? There are plenty of 21 year-olds at my college who are incredibly irresponsible with their time and health at least part of the time; if you need any proof of that, visit the fraternity district of a large university after an American football game against their rival.
Oh, so we should let them have sex with adults since they are 10 and let them drink since they are 5 because, hey who is Uncle Sam to say when they are mature enough.
Actually, I was referring to the mentality of "Think of the children" to justify any and all measure made in the name of protecting the young ones, but the instant the clock strikes midnight and the individual turns 18, they suddenly are judged to be capable of making all sorts of judgements that moments ago somehow couldn't.
You'd be surprised how enjoyable reading is...
Reading? I hope you're not reading any Heinlen, Crichton, Tolkien, or the like. If you are, wouldn't that be time better spent learning about and trying to advance quantum mechanics; or reading up on national health policy, and advocating reform of the tortuous system that is Medicare; or even examining what you can do about the ginormous loss of biodiversity in recent times? I enjoy reading. I adore it. But, frankly, unless you have a very narrow selection in your reading material, I'd be willing to bet that a not unconsiderable amount of your reading material isn't much better than network TV.
But the point was that some individuals are not responsible and some individuals are inherently vulnerable (children).
And my point was that the line drawn between those whom you assert to be "inherently vulnerable" and those who aren't is incredibly arbitrary. IIRC, individuals used to work, marry and bear children when they were 12, and held to be as just as responsible for themselves as I (early 20s) and you are (probably older than me). I'm not saying it was any better in the "golden, olden days"; rather, what is there to stop the line from being redrawn at 17 or 22? There are plenty of 21 year-olds at my college who are incredibly irresponsible with their time and health at least part of the time; if you need any proof of that, visit the fraternity district of a large university after an American football game against their rival.
Easy-peasy. Your "generous" behavior comes about from an ulterior motive, that of feeling better about yourself. It becomes a matter of which counts more, actions or thoughts. Your statement appears to coincide with the latter. Paradox resolved.
By your argument, there are a lot of stupid people out there who can't help spew racist remarks with the clear intent of raising the ire of their target; therefore Uncle Sam should "do something about it" and censor them... because they don't know any better, right? And those kids probably won't magically know better the instant they turn 18 - in fact, there are many stupid adults who don't know better now who don't have the wits to protect themselves - so, hey, why don't we just regulate MySpace/Facebook/Friendster/etc usage for every American? Why not require all individuals to register before being allowed to go online, an Internet license if you will, and be required to use that when registering for those sites?
You make the statement that since your generation didn't have social networking sites that our generation should do perfectly fine without, too. Well, sure. Your parents' generation probably didn't have TVs while growing up (your grandparents' generation certainly didn't), and we know darn well how much time is wasted in this country in front of the boob tube, and all the filth broadcasted just over the air, not to speak of cable and satellite. Why not get rid of the TV? Why not remove every single thing from our lives that is predominantly a waste of time?
But what happened to the...
on
MacGyver Physics
·
· Score: 4, Funny
...chewing gum wrapper?! Everybody knows that MacGuyver would use a chewing gum wrapper!
If they were reasonably sure that their stock would recover - like it did - it'd be pretty effective. Though I guess this sort of method can be used only once...
That, or go into the display settings and increase the font size. Just an idea. And if his phone is really crashing every week with nothing installed, then he seriouly needs to get a replacement. The only times I've had to shut off/restart my T-Mobile MDA since I bought it was to install a new ROM and to test a different phone with the SIM card.
"Our society is not demanding. People naturally yearn for the challenge of war. That is why many G.I.s re-enlist and do tour after tour."
Oh, I get it now. The stop-loss orders were just for fun then.
...Carbon stated that the Supreme Court could "take a flying leap," insisting that SCOTUS should spend its time instead worrying about the dangers that Oxygen and Sodium present.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, you know, it could turn out that the people who'd be ok with paying a couple hundered dollars more for the phone (in some locations, it is illegal to sell phones with contract-only; they have to at least display a phone-only cost) STILL won't be allowed to use Wi-Fi unless they sign a contract, after which a piece of software enables Wi-Fi access. Knowing AT&T, I wouldn't put it past them.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/quotes
you should watch it sometime; it'd be pretty good
Ooookay, what's wrong with saving the money to buy the TV, paying for the TV with a credit card, and paying off the balance at the end of the month? Just beause you *can* carry a balance doesn't mean you *have* to. Plus, if you're fortunate to have a cashback credit card, you get a little chunk of cash...back... on your purchase.
Ugh. Sorry, I was a bit careless with the closing tags. This should be easier to read.
Oh, so we should let them have sex with adults since they are 10 and let them drink since they are 5 because, hey who is Uncle Sam to say when they are mature enough.
Actually, I was referring to the mentality of "Think of the children" to justify any and all measure made in the name of protecting the young ones, but the instant the clock strikes midnight and the individual turns 18, they suddenly are judged to be capable of making all sorts of judgements that moments ago somehow couldn't.
You'd be surprised how enjoyable reading is...
Reading? I hope you're not reading any Heinlen, Crichton, Tolkien, or the like. If you are, wouldn't that be time better spent learning about and trying to advance quantum mechanics; or reading up on national health policy, and advocating reform of the tortuous system that is Medicare; or even examining what you can do about the ginormous loss of biodiversity in recent times? I enjoy reading. I adore it. But, frankly, unless you have a very narrow selection in your reading material, I'd be willing to bet that a not unconsiderable amount of your reading material isn't much better than network TV.
But the point was that some individuals are not responsible and some individuals are inherently vulnerable (children).
And my point was that the line drawn between those whom you assert to be "inherently vulnerable" and those who aren't is incredibly arbitrary. IIRC, individuals used to work, marry and bear children when they were 12, and held to be as just as responsible for themselves as I (early 20s) and you are (probably older than me). I'm not saying it was any better in the "golden, olden days"; rather, what is there to stop the line from being redrawn at 17 or 22? There are plenty of 21 year-olds at my college who are incredibly irresponsible with their time and health at least part of the time; if you need any proof of that, visit the fraternity district of a large university after an American football game against their rival.
Oh, so we should let them have sex with adults since they are 10 and let them drink since they are 5 because, hey who is Uncle Sam to say when they are mature enough.
Actually, I was referring to the mentality of "Think of the children" to justify any and all measure made in the name of protecting the young ones, but the instant the clock strikes midnight and the individual turns 18, they suddenly are judged to be capable of making all sorts of judgements that moments ago somehow couldn't.
You'd be surprised how enjoyable reading is...
Reading? I hope you're not reading any Heinlen, Crichton, Tolkien, or the like. If you are, wouldn't that be time better spent learning about and trying to advance quantum mechanics; or reading up on national health policy, and advocating reform of the tortuous system that is Medicare; or even examining what you can do about the ginormous loss of biodiversity in recent times? I enjoy reading. I adore it. But, frankly, unless you have a very narrow selection in your reading material, I'd be willing to bet that a not unconsiderable amount of your reading material isn't much better than network TV.
But the point was that some individuals are not responsible and some individuals are inherently vulnerable (children).
And my point was that the line drawn between those whom you assert to be "inherently vulnerable" and those who aren't is incredibly arbitrary. IIRC, individuals used to work, marry and bear children when they were 12, and held to be as just as responsible for themselves as I (early 20s) and you are (probably older than me). I'm not saying it was any better in the "golden, olden days"; rather, what is there to stop the line from being redrawn at 17 or 22? There are plenty of 21 year-olds at my college who are incredibly irresponsible with their time and health at least part of the time; if you need any proof of that, visit the fraternity district of a large university after an American football game against their rival.
Easy-peasy. Your "generous" behavior comes about from an ulterior motive, that of feeling better about yourself. It becomes a matter of which counts more, actions or thoughts. Your statement appears to coincide with the latter. Paradox resolved.
By your argument, there are a lot of stupid people out there who can't help spew racist remarks with the clear intent of raising the ire of their target; therefore Uncle Sam should "do something about it" and censor them... because they don't know any better, right? And those kids probably won't magically know better the instant they turn 18 - in fact, there are many stupid adults who don't know better now who don't have the wits to protect themselves - so, hey, why don't we just regulate MySpace/Facebook/Friendster/etc usage for every American? Why not require all individuals to register before being allowed to go online, an Internet license if you will, and be required to use that when registering for those sites? You make the statement that since your generation didn't have social networking sites that our generation should do perfectly fine without, too. Well, sure. Your parents' generation probably didn't have TVs while growing up (your grandparents' generation certainly didn't), and we know darn well how much time is wasted in this country in front of the boob tube, and all the filth broadcasted just over the air, not to speak of cable and satellite. Why not get rid of the TV? Why not remove every single thing from our lives that is predominantly a waste of time?
...chewing gum wrapper?! Everybody knows that MacGuyver would use a chewing gum wrapper!
...'Universal' Search still can't find where you put your car keys.
If they were reasonably sure that their stock would recover - like it did - it'd be pretty effective. Though I guess this sort of method can be used only once...
That, or go into the display settings and increase the font size. Just an idea. And if his phone is really crashing every week with nothing installed, then he seriouly needs to get a replacement. The only times I've had to shut off/restart my T-Mobile MDA since I bought it was to install a new ROM and to test a different phone with the SIM card.
If you want a phone that is strictly a phone, then the Nokia 1100 should fit the bill.
...is the fact that this hasn't happened more often.
Get the PC registration codes, download the Mac trial, and then activate it with said codes.
"Our society is not demanding. People naturally yearn for the challenge of war. That is why many G.I.s re-enlist and do tour after tour." Oh, I get it now. The stop-loss orders were just for fun then.
Can you hook up multiple keyboards? And then assign each keyboard to a particular instance? And have multiple people use them simultaneously? Easily?
Microsoft's splitPC doesn't require an extra piece of hardware; it's entirely in software. RTFS next time.
The Sun? Appearing in virtual worlds? I knew it! There's no escape from the daystar! We're all doomed! Dooooooooooooomed!
...one of the newer pacemakers models that are made nowadays.
Does EA think The9 would screw over EA's Warhammer MMO in favor of WoW if they just had a contract deal?
...hasn't Microsoft's approach on [new competing product] or [new innovation] generally been 'Wait and See'?
...Carbon stated that the Supreme Court could "take a flying leap," insisting that SCOTUS should spend its time instead worrying about the dangers that Oxygen and Sodium present.
All your IP are belong to us. You are on the way to being rooted. You have no chance to 200 make your time.
...scientists have come to the conclusion that *that's* no moon.
You mean like alpha and omega?