Except HDMI is a closed standard and buying HDMI chips requires signing over your first-born to Satan.
As someone who used to worship Satan as a kid (yeah, stupid), I resent that remark. Please do not insult Satan by comparing him to a vile media consortium.
Google could buy out the whole MAFIAA with little leverage, and with cooperation with Facebook and co, even straight out. Due to the way Hollywood accounting and similar practices work, lawsuits against those "not a subsidiary, honest" companies would probably be enough to recover that money, before even starting an asset sale. And even if such a corporate raid would end up with a loss -- heck, the balance in lobbying would shift so much we could even possibly get an outright abolishment of copyright.
Its first priority now is making money for its shareholders.
Not even that. The first priority is always top executives' pay. Stock price is merely a tool to get that. And long-term profit is not even on the radar.
Spammers can use flux hosting for their websites so this part is not easy to target. Accepting payment, though, is something that's trivial to block -- if there was any will to do so.
Let's check the dictionary: 1. terrorist -- a radical who employs terror as a political weapon 1..3. (other meanings) 4. terror -- the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons)
So yes, your fine government matches the definition fully. Although probably telling them what this word means would make YOU labelled terrorist.
Except that women are notoriously pressured into "voluntarily" agreeing for the arbitration -- usually even without being told they can refuse. Once they agree, the Sharia court's ruling is binding, and enforced by law. And inheritance or child custody can affect a major part of one's life.
It's mostly institutional harassment of the rest of the population by muslims. Have you seen what happens in Malmö, suburbs of Paris or London? In some parts of the UK, they even get to impose Sharia law on muslim-inhabited areas and have their rulings enforced by the police -- currently restricted mostly to family issues which are a good example of gender equality in Islam.
Christianity does its own share of harassment as well: in Poland, there is a law against "insulting religious feelings" -- yet being a travesty of free speech it is, it is nothing compared to death fatwas for bad but true words against Muhammad (damnation be unto him).
The whole point of GPL is emulating what the world would be without copyrights -- as opposed to BSD which is basically "I'm a charity, take it and use or abuse, even against me". The only thing GPL gives you that you wouldn't get outright by abolishing copyright are comments in the source code. You can bet decompilers would sprout up overnight the moment you are actually allowed to use their output -- and then, it's a matter of tidying up what is essentially obfuscated code. And deobfuscation can be to some extent automated.
You'd have people rushing to analyze any such code that is of interest to someone, so pretty likely the result would be consumer protection laws granting everyone the equivalent of GPL. And even if not, there'd be no big difference.
We are fucking outraged at our gov't. They will not get re-elected.
Except that there's no alternative to the ruling party -- their runner-ups (30% vote) are religious national socialists (extreme right wing, conspiracy theory "germans, russians, jews and europeans try to get us!", religious fundamentalists, corrupt, economical ideas same as Orban in Hungary), and some populist far-left. So sadly we can't punish them at the voting booth.
If I wanted to close the program, there's that button in the corner of the window, or Alt-F4, or Ctrl-Q. That's different from a request to close the tab (ie, the tab close button, or Ctrl-W). No other MDI program does that. It's a failure to conform to commonly agreed upon standards, for no reason whatsoever. Be that a bug or a misfeature, the end result is the same: the program suddenly quit when it shouldn't have.
Where do you pull that "3X faster" from? Without proper AdBlock, Chrome seems to be only about as fast as Firefox. With AdBlock installed and properly configured (ie, not just the defaults, including "non" (hah) intrusive ads), Firefox runs circles around Chrome. If you can't bother setting it up, try NoScript.
That's just speed. Now try to factor in privacy, features or configurability. For example, in their default setting, Chrome crashes to desktop if you close the only tab. Someone on the Firefox team had the "brilliant" idea to ape that, and sadly, Firefox does that by default as well now. But fear not: "Close Last Tab" restores sanity. Also, tabs on top: I find myself using keyboard to access tabs only ~50% of the time -- the tab bar is accessed at least an order of magnitude more often than the URL bar, thus it should be more accessible. Again, the Firefox team aped Chrome's misfeature, but you can restore sanity easily. Get rid of the useless search bar? Here you go. Get rid of Google's typo-jacking? browser.fixup.alternate.enabled=false and keyword.enabled=false (you can type "google goat porn" if you want to search; rename the default keyword to "g" for convenience). Fix the http:/// being hidden for 1/3 sites that still didn't go SSL? browser.urlbar.trimURLs=false. And so on, so on.
I am a gay man who wants to get married and have children.
A solo person deserves such benefits more than them.
1. Yes, I am after lowered taxes and certain other benefits meant to encourage having kids. Why do you say a solo person deserves such benefits more than me?
Ok, I probably misphrased it: s/deserve/need/.
A kid that has a parent and a step-parent is likely to require government handouts less than a kid who has but a solo parent. This is not a hard rule, of course.
When it comes to deserving, you are exactly equal -- raising a kid is raising a kid.
Thus, let's go for the complement: a whole household or nothing.
You're onto the answer. However, by doing that, you're still making the mistake that the government shouldn't make - making a decision of who can or can't be involved.
I kind of fail to understand what you disagree with -- I claim that the only non-discriminating way is to allow anyone to bond with anyone else, no matter the gender, race or number of people in such a bond. You claim the government shouldn't get to choose, leaving that decision to the individuals who want to enter the union.
Unless I get something wrong, these are equivalent.
Guys, can't you @#$%^& read? I did write "tax breaks and other benefits". Obviously minor perks like hospital visitations are included -- and far bigger ones like far better inheritance rules as well.
I'm not claiming that gays should be denied those -- but giving one alternate sexuality preferential treatment over others is a prime example of discrimination. Gays are not in any way better than other ways that are not in fashion in the US right now -- and no worse.
It's not merely taxes -- other parts of the package include stuff like inheritance, granting citizenship, etc.
You didn't answer why we should give these rights to gays but not to other variants of marriage (like polygamy). Unless you meant this by "I actually think that the State should have no role in marriage at all" -- in that case, the civil union contract (whatever it is named) would have no such restrictions.
And as for religious right: what about forcing them to follow their own rules, including forced marriage with the victim and 50 shekels (=$13) for a rape? That's what Christianity tells us to do (the New Testament stresses five times that all old rules are still in full force). I guess we'd see a huge rush of apostates (here, mostly women) if they read the scripture.
Actually, they don't care about a goddamned piece of paper. They care about tax breaks and pensions.
So let's raise a question: WHY do married couples get those tax breaks? If it's for raising kids, marriages without kids should be denied those (and then we don't really need marriage other than civil unions -- unify those tax breaks with child benefits single parents get). If it's for living together, polygamy should be allowed -- and heck, even merely being roommates as that's no different from a white marriage.
Homosexuality is fashionable currently, polygamy is not. Microsoft doesn't care about rights, it cares about PR.
I see only two valid thresholds: * 1 man 1 woman (rationale: the only 1-on-1 configuration capable of having children) * any cohabiting group (rationale: the only non-discriminating one)
On one hand: what's the reason two guys want to be recognized as a "marriage"? Not children, as they can't have them, and they're just as capable of raising a kid one of them had with a third party as mere friends as a couple -- it can never be "their" kid, at most of one of them. The uncomfortable truth is that they're after lowered taxes and certain other benefits meant to encourage having kids. A solo person deserves such benefits more than them.
But, on the other hand, what about heterosexual marriages that don't want to have children? Should they be denied such benefits? And what about 80 years old newlyweds? Here the first variant falls apart.
Thus, I'd say that there is no other way than to allow any group. Promoting homosexualism is picking them over polygamy (which actually has biological reasons), Yet we can't have it the mormon/muslim way (1 man, 4 women) -- gender equality forces us to allow 4 women 1 man as well. But then, why not 2 men 2 women?
Thus, let's go for the complement: a whole household or nothing. This would allow simplifying all child/adoption/marriage/etc rules: anyone can join, if you were underage when joining you are not allowed to ever have relations with someone who was a part of the group (no matter if you were born into or adopted); only adults can ever leave (except as a court order in cases of abuse or neglect). No restrictions on gender, number or anything whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Except HDMI is a closed standard and buying HDMI chips requires signing over your first-born to Satan.
As someone who used to worship Satan as a kid (yeah, stupid), I resent that remark. Please do not insult Satan by comparing him to a vile media consortium.
Nice, although unless there is some means to firmly affix them to the phone, they'd be of no use in any place I recently used my N900 in.
You mean, will that keyboard fit in your pocket?
No keyboard makes it useless for any serious use. It's a toy like iStuff.
Not just games. The Order of the Stick is there, too. And that's one of biggest heavyweights among webcomics.
Google could buy out the whole MAFIAA with little leverage, and with cooperation with Facebook and co, even straight out. Due to the way Hollywood accounting and similar practices work, lawsuits against those "not a subsidiary, honest" companies would probably be enough to recover that money, before even starting an asset sale. And even if such a corporate raid would end up with a loss -- heck, the balance in lobbying would shift so much we could even possibly get an outright abolishment of copyright.
Its first priority now is making money for its shareholders.
Not even that. The first priority is always top executives' pay. Stock price is merely a tool to get that. And long-term profit is not even on the radar.
Gold has no inherent value, but cannot be easily gamed.
Spammers can use flux hosting for their websites so this part is not easy to target. Accepting payment, though, is something that's trivial to block -- if there was any will to do so.
Let's check the dictionary:
1. terrorist -- a radical who employs terror as a political weapon
1..3. (other meanings) 4. terror -- the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons)
So yes, your fine government matches the definition fully. Although probably telling them what this word means would make YOU labelled terrorist.
Except that women are notoriously pressured into "voluntarily" agreeing for the arbitration -- usually even without being told they can refuse. Once they agree, the Sharia court's ruling is binding, and enforced by law. And inheritance or child custody can affect a major part of one's life.
Organized clergy is an institution, Sharia courts that are recognized by a government doubly so.
It's mostly institutional harassment of the rest of the population by muslims. Have you seen what happens in Malmö, suburbs of Paris or London? In some parts of the UK, they even get to impose Sharia law on muslim-inhabited areas and have their rulings enforced by the police -- currently restricted mostly to family issues which are a good example of gender equality in Islam.
Christianity does its own share of harassment as well: in Poland, there is a law against "insulting religious feelings" -- yet being a travesty of free speech it is, it is nothing compared to death fatwas for bad but true words against Muhammad (damnation be unto him).
The whole point of GPL is emulating what the world would be without copyrights -- as opposed to BSD which is basically "I'm a charity, take it and use or abuse, even against me". The only thing GPL gives you that you wouldn't get outright by abolishing copyright are comments in the source code. You can bet decompilers would sprout up overnight the moment you are actually allowed to use their output -- and then, it's a matter of tidying up what is essentially obfuscated code. And deobfuscation can be to some extent automated.
You'd have people rushing to analyze any such code that is of interest to someone, so pretty likely the result would be consumer protection laws granting everyone the equivalent of GPL. And even if not, there'd be no big difference.
Cmon, considering how long it takes Congress to pass NEW laws, if we had a sunset clause like this nothing would ever get done.
That's the whole point!
We are fucking outraged at our gov't.
They will not get re-elected.
Except that there's no alternative to the ruling party -- their runner-ups (30% vote) are religious national socialists (extreme right wing, conspiracy theory "germans, russians, jews and europeans try to get us!", religious fundamentalists, corrupt, economical ideas same as Orban in Hungary), and some populist far-left.
So sadly we can't punish them at the voting booth.
If I wanted to close the program, there's that button in the corner of the window, or Alt-F4, or Ctrl-Q. That's different from a request to close the tab (ie, the tab close button, or Ctrl-W). No other MDI program does that. It's a failure to conform to commonly agreed upon standards, for no reason whatsoever. Be that a bug or a misfeature, the end result is the same: the program suddenly quit when it shouldn't have.
Where do you pull that "3X faster" from? Without proper AdBlock, Chrome seems to be only about as fast as Firefox. With AdBlock installed and properly configured (ie, not just the defaults, including "non" (hah) intrusive ads), Firefox runs circles around Chrome. If you can't bother setting it up, try NoScript.
That's just speed. Now try to factor in privacy, features or configurability. For example, in their default setting, Chrome crashes to desktop if you close the only tab. Someone on the Firefox team had the "brilliant" idea to ape that, and sadly, Firefox does that by default as well now. But fear not: "Close Last Tab" restores sanity. Also, tabs on top: I find myself using keyboard to access tabs only ~50% of the time -- the tab bar is accessed at least an order of magnitude more often than the URL bar, thus it should be more accessible. Again, the Firefox team aped Chrome's misfeature, but you can restore sanity easily. Get rid of the useless search bar? Here you go. Get rid of Google's typo-jacking? browser.fixup.alternate.enabled=false and keyword.enabled=false (you can type "google goat porn" if you want to search; rename the default keyword to "g" for convenience). Fix the http:/// being hidden for 1/3 sites that still didn't go SSL? browser.urlbar.trimURLs=false. And so on, so on.
No, you can march around in the street chanting offensive things about rich white males now too.
Technically you can, but only if you don't care about getting taken by the cops.
No different from, say, chanting offensive things about Stalin during his time (ok, ok, in the US you'll be eventually released... yet).
I am a gay man who wants to get married and have children.
A solo person deserves such benefits more than them.
1. Yes, I am after lowered taxes and certain other benefits meant to encourage having kids. Why do you say a solo person deserves such benefits more than me?
Ok, I probably misphrased it: s/deserve/need/.
A kid that has a parent and a step-parent is likely to require government handouts less than a kid who has but a solo parent. This is not a hard rule, of course.
When it comes to deserving, you are exactly equal -- raising a kid is raising a kid.
Thus, let's go for the complement: a whole household or nothing.
You're onto the answer. However, by doing that, you're still making the mistake that the government shouldn't make - making a decision of who can or can't be involved.
I kind of fail to understand what you disagree with -- I claim that the only non-discriminating way is to allow anyone to bond with anyone else, no matter the gender, race or number of people in such a bond. You claim the government shouldn't get to choose, leaving that decision to the individuals who want to enter the union.
Unless I get something wrong, these are equivalent.
Guys, can't you @#$%^& read? I did write "tax breaks and other benefits". Obviously minor perks like hospital visitations are included -- and far bigger ones like far better inheritance rules as well.
I'm not claiming that gays should be denied those -- but giving one alternate sexuality preferential treatment over others is a prime example of discrimination. Gays are not in any way better than other ways that are not in fashion in the US right now -- and no worse.
It's not merely taxes -- other parts of the package include stuff like inheritance, granting citizenship, etc.
You didn't answer why we should give these rights to gays but not to other variants of marriage (like polygamy). Unless you meant this by "I actually think that the State should have no role in marriage at all" -- in that case, the civil union contract (whatever it is named) would have no such restrictions.
And as for religious right: what about forcing them to follow their own rules, including forced marriage with the victim and 50 shekels (=$13) for a rape? That's what Christianity tells us to do (the New Testament stresses five times that all old rules are still in full force). I guess we'd see a huge rush of apostates (here, mostly women) if they read the scripture.
Actually, they don't care about a goddamned piece of paper. They care about tax breaks and pensions.
So let's raise a question: WHY do married couples get those tax breaks? If it's for raising kids, marriages without kids should be denied those (and then we don't really need marriage other than civil unions -- unify those tax breaks with child benefits single parents get). If it's for living together, polygamy should be allowed -- and heck, even merely being roommates as that's no different from a white marriage.
Homosexuality is fashionable currently, polygamy is not. Microsoft doesn't care about rights, it cares about PR.
I see only two valid thresholds:
* 1 man 1 woman (rationale: the only 1-on-1 configuration capable of having children)
* any cohabiting group (rationale: the only non-discriminating one)
On one hand: what's the reason two guys want to be recognized as a "marriage"? Not children, as they can't have them, and they're just as capable of raising a kid one of them had with a third party as mere friends as a couple -- it can never be "their" kid, at most of one of them. The uncomfortable truth is that they're after lowered taxes and certain other benefits meant to encourage having kids. A solo person deserves such benefits more than them.
But, on the other hand, what about heterosexual marriages that don't want to have children? Should they be denied such benefits? And what about 80 years old newlyweds? Here the first variant falls apart.
Thus, I'd say that there is no other way than to allow any group. Promoting homosexualism is picking them over polygamy (which actually has biological reasons), Yet we can't have it the mormon/muslim way (1 man, 4 women) -- gender equality forces us to allow 4 women 1 man as well. But then, why not 2 men 2 women?
Thus, let's go for the complement: a whole household or nothing. This would allow simplifying all child/adoption/marriage/etc rules: anyone can join, if you were underage when joining you are not allowed to ever have relations with someone who was a part of the group (no matter if you were born into or adopted); only adults can ever leave (except as a court order in cases of abuse or neglect). No restrictions on gender, number or anything whatsoever.
And with modern monitor shapes, it might even have as much as 600 vertical pixels!