Kind of irrelevant. Posting and tagging of images of me can be done whether I'm on FB or not. And if I don't have a wall they can still talk about me (only then it will be behind my back).
Er, that information is for promotional purposes since diaspora* isn't up yet. When it's up we will see. If the design makes it easy to use -- and there's no reason it couldn't be at least as easy as Facebook -- then it could catch on. Especially if it lives up to its promise of aggregating existing social network feeds, because people won't want to abandon those altogether.
"publishing system" is a darn good description. I don't put anything there that I wouldn't feel comfortable with strangers finding out about me. Just as when you are in a public place you wouldn't intentionally reveal such information about yourself. I say to myself, "Facebook is a public place". That fact doesn't keep me from going there: I'm not an agoraphobe. It just governs what I do when I'm there.
I don't think the MS case represents a new legal standard. The verdict was against them. Because of the judge's loose lips it was sent back to the penalty stage. A new administration dropped the ball and they got off with a slap on the wrist but the verdict stood. The question for me always was, why would a plaintiff settle a case after winning a verdict?
Move it to neutral and release, it goes to neutral. Move it through neutral to B, and release, and it goes to B mode. I've not experienced having to hold it in place.
I've looked far and wide for a quote from Toyota where they claimed that either their electronics or their software was "infallible", with no luck. What I did find were several passages similar to "Toyota's assertion that its electronics are infallible" with no citation of such an assertion.
Infallibility sound like something no sane manufacturer would claim. Can anyone cite where this alleged claim was made?
There are quite a few "don't regulate traffic shaping" voices here. I don't agree with them. Those same voices, I expect, will at least be consistent in saying "don't regulate search".
But it's not inconsistent to say "regulate traffic shaping but don't regulate search". The first applies to the carrier and the second to (a form of) content. I'm really not liking the idea of content regulation but I want fair access to the content that's there.
To be fair to the submitter, give the full context: "Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon' — and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases — may be causing much of the rapid melting of glaciers in the Himalayas."
Note the word "much", which suggests a significant portion but not 100%.
In the original text, "as much as half" implies = 50%, and suggests it is close to that number. "Much" could easily suggest somewhere between 10% and 90%, although it is very vague, but I don't think it conflicts with the original. Not the clearest statement he could have made, but not inaccurate in a literal sense either.
Now, if he had written "most", then that would really be a distortion.
If someone has a model that shows something, and you say the result is false without producing a viable model or theory to show that it is, then you are engaging in contradiction, not argument.
"Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." (Monty Python)
I'm waiting for a model that doesn't violate physics and gives identical results with and without the anthropogenic CO2 (similar to but not quite identical to your criteria).
Of course, once such a model is found, and it is validated through observation, we'll need to rewrite a lot of textbooks, but that's been done before due to the Michelson-Morley experiment, the photoelectric effect, and the double-slit experiment; this would be no less revolutionary.
I'm not sure it's possible to "have an absolute lack of anything" and I'm not even sure what that would mean, but preference didn't enter into the question at all.
Slashdot Mirror
So an octopus can't really pick world cup winners reliably? I'm disappointed!
when effing China thinks your device isn't open enough!
Actually, the second is the corollary of the first, not the other way around. But, you were just being ironic, right?
Kind of irrelevant. Posting and tagging of images of me can be done whether I'm on FB or not. And if I don't have a wall they can still talk about me (only then it will be behind my back).
butte ugly serial killers
Um, are they ugly, or are they buttes?
Sometimes justice really is blind.
Er, that information is for promotional purposes since diaspora* isn't up yet. When it's up we will see. If the design makes it easy to use -- and there's no reason it couldn't be at least as easy as Facebook -- then it could catch on. Especially if it lives up to its promise of aggregating existing social network feeds, because people won't want to abandon those altogether.
"publishing system" is a darn good description. I don't put anything there that I wouldn't feel comfortable with strangers finding out about me. Just as when you are in a public place you wouldn't intentionally reveal such information about yourself. I say to myself, "Facebook is a public place". That fact doesn't keep me from going there: I'm not an agoraphobe. It just governs what I do when I'm there.
Good joke but bad analogy. 20% of cash reserves is a far cry from 20% of net worth.
I don't think the MS case represents a new legal standard. The verdict was against them. Because of the judge's loose lips it was sent back to the penalty stage. A new administration dropped the ball and they got off with a slap on the wrist but the verdict stood. The question for me always was, why would a plaintiff settle a case after winning a verdict?
"En" is a typographical unit.
I'll be first in line for the upgrade!
Move it to neutral and release, it goes to neutral. Move it through neutral to B, and release, and it goes to B mode. I've not experienced having to hold it in place.
I've looked far and wide for a quote from Toyota where they claimed that either their electronics or their software was "infallible", with no luck. What I did find were several passages similar to "Toyota's assertion that its electronics are infallible" with no citation of such an assertion.
Infallibility sound like something no sane manufacturer would claim. Can anyone cite where this alleged claim was made?
A Toyota race car. A Toyota!
Chevy had the Nova. Toyota should name one of their models the Nopara.
There are quite a few "don't regulate traffic shaping" voices here. I don't agree with them. Those same voices, I expect, will at least be consistent in saying "don't regulate search".
But it's not inconsistent to say "regulate traffic shaping but don't regulate search". The first applies to the carrier and the second to (a form of) content. I'm really not liking the idea of content regulation but I want fair access to the content that's there.
and not in the least pompous.
he said ironically.
Well, yardage is a real word.
Which "last three years" are you cherry-picking? 2006 through 2008? 2008 was a La Nina year.
To be fair to the submitter, give the full context: "Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon' — and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases — may be causing much of the rapid melting of glaciers in the Himalayas."
Note the word "much", which suggests a significant portion but not 100%.
In the original text, "as much as half" implies = 50%, and suggests it is close to that number. "Much" could easily suggest somewhere between 10% and 90%, although it is very vague, but I don't think it conflicts with the original. Not the clearest statement he could have made, but not inaccurate in a literal sense either.
Now, if he had written "most", then that would really be a distortion.
Er, the guys who did the supposed debunking have been discredited.
If someone has a model that shows something, and you say the result is false without producing a viable model or theory to show that it is, then you are engaging in contradiction, not argument.
"Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says." (Monty Python)
I'm waiting for a model that doesn't violate physics and gives identical results with and without the anthropogenic CO2 (similar to but not quite identical to your criteria).
Of course, once such a model is found, and it is validated through observation, we'll need to rewrite a lot of textbooks, but that's been done before due to the Michelson-Morley experiment, the photoelectric effect, and the double-slit experiment; this would be no less revolutionary.
I'm not sure it's possible to "have an absolute lack of anything" and I'm not even sure what that would mean, but preference didn't enter into the question at all.