Most rooms aren't perfectly square, nor have perfectly even floors, so there's no surprise here. Not saying it's impossible, but personally, I'd need more evidence than that before making any assumptions.
Actually, I have watched a hamster in a ball many times, complete with my sister's commentary on where her hamster was going, and why. I remain unconvinced, given that the direction was always erratic, and that behavioral psychology dictates a critter will stop doing something (i.e., going somewhere) if there is no reward (i.e., it's still stuck in the same ball with the same plastic, so any place on the outside is much the same). Unless you're suggesting it's going places to admire the view?;)
Paths? Do hamsters even follow paths with a ball? Has anyone proven that they don't just run to ESCAPE the ball, with no thought about what's outside the ball except "freedom"?
Large eyes might correlate with needing to see in the dark THESE days, but we can't really make that assumption about other times without (at least) hard statistics. It could be, for example, that all eyes were large eyes, until small eyes evolved.
All you will have to show is that X percent of the population does such things, and if a particular employer has significantly less than X percent of such people among their employees, they are therefore guilty of discrimination.
Which would probably be perfectly true, even if the link is indirect. For example, an employer might discriminate against people with tattoos which might then in turn mean less people who drink on the weekend.
Suing for discrimination agains that would be perfectly valid, unless you can also show an inverse link between people with tattoos, and skills required to do the job.
Everyone is talking about what will happen if they don't show. My question is... why wouldn't they? What have they got to lose by appearing in court? It's not like they'll be personally convicted, right? What's the issue?
see how long it is before/. is posting a story that the TTS feature has been opened up to any book.
Doesn't matter. Any blind user who wants to hear a book will still be a criminal.
Frankly, I'm shocked at this. Organisations representing blind people have already written open letters to point out the discrimination involved here (although it should have been obvious), and amazon are nonetheless caving to pressure from big corporations who want to undermine citizens' rights under copyright law.
And many linux desktops only come with Firefox or Konqueror, and many mobile platforms only come with Opera, and many consoles only come with their own half-baked browsers, unless you go out of your way to find an alternative. That's not the issue. The issue is that IE is bundled with a monopoly product, non-standard, has related development tools that encourage writing for just it, and the end result is that a monopoly is, by default, becoming more of a monopoly, when the intent is that, instead, competition and progress should be encouraged.
Yeah, just "retraining" is pretty much enough to stall the whole thing. Still, I'm VERY glad to see this move. It's a huge step up from the widely ignored bill that was enacted back in 2002/3 or so.
Unless it's changed substantially in the last year or so, that's not been my experience AT ALL. Tor is usable, but freenet was never anything more than an interesting demo to me.
This is sort of like the FTC ordering GM to allow a free choice of stereos in its cars, rather than ship cars with only its (former) in-house brand of Delco.
If your car stereo was the part that communicated with toll booths to let you onto a road, yes.
If every ISP blocks 100%, then not even cops can get an unfiltered connection.
They don't want every day cops to have an unfiltered connection. They want a special organisation, very likely an unelected one, to sit in judgement. It's a lovely idea really.
Slashdot Mirror
If I recall correctly, Chani (of KDE fame) once blogged about having difficulty even using SSH from inside China.
Most rooms aren't perfectly square, nor have perfectly even floors, so there's no surprise here. Not saying it's impossible, but personally, I'd need more evidence than that before making any assumptions.
Actually, I have watched a hamster in a ball many times, complete with my sister's commentary on where her hamster was going, and why. I remain unconvinced, given that the direction was always erratic, and that behavioral psychology dictates a critter will stop doing something (i.e., going somewhere) if there is no reward (i.e., it's still stuck in the same ball with the same plastic, so any place on the outside is much the same). Unless you're suggesting it's going places to admire the view? ;)
What else can you tag a comment about eyes?
Paths? Do hamsters even follow paths with a ball? Has anyone proven that they don't just run to ESCAPE the ball, with no thought about what's outside the ball except "freedom"?
Hmm. I'll check it out thoroughly and get back to you ;)
Large eyes might correlate with needing to see in the dark THESE days, but we can't really make that assumption about other times without (at least) hard statistics. It could be, for example, that all eyes were large eyes, until small eyes evolved.
Sorry, I meant, "...IF you can also show an..."
Which would probably be perfectly true, even if the link is indirect. For example, an employer might discriminate against people with tattoos which might then in turn mean less people who drink on the weekend.
Suing for discrimination agains that would be perfectly valid, unless you can also show an inverse link between people with tattoos, and skills required to do the job.
Everyone is talking about what will happen if they don't show. My question is... why wouldn't they? What have they got to lose by appearing in court? It's not like they'll be personally convicted, right? What's the issue?
Unfortunately, the fact that he's been behaving so unusually regarding his navel pretty much invalidates any tests he could do on it.
I was thinking more along these lines:
Special hair...
Drawing debris into the intestinal area...
Sounds a lot like a primitive sea creature, or even a carnivorous plant.
I wonder if there's any shared evolution/genes here.
It means that no principles were involved.
Doesn't matter. Any blind user who wants to hear a book will still be a criminal.
Frankly, I'm shocked at this. Organisations representing blind people have already written open letters to point out the discrimination involved here (although it should have been obvious), and amazon are nonetheless caving to pressure from big corporations who want to undermine citizens' rights under copyright law.
I have serious text processing to do every time I see perl's syntax ;)
I should hope not. You seem to be in violent agreement with me, for the most part.
And many linux desktops only come with Firefox or Konqueror, and many mobile platforms only come with Opera, and many consoles only come with their own half-baked browsers, unless you go out of your way to find an alternative. That's not the issue. The issue is that IE is bundled with a monopoly product, non-standard, has related development tools that encourage writing for just it, and the end result is that a monopoly is, by default, becoming more of a monopoly, when the intent is that, instead, competition and progress should be encouraged.
That's a really bad marketing slogan, you know. Most people wouldn't associate being on crack with good things.
Yeah, just "retraining" is pretty much enough to stall the whole thing. Still, I'm VERY glad to see this move. It's a huge step up from the widely ignored bill that was enacted back in 2002/3 or so.
Unless it's changed substantially in the last year or so, that's not been my experience AT ALL. Tor is usable, but freenet was never anything more than an interesting demo to me.
What I want to know is... which ISPs are holding out? There should be a whitelist for the ISPs that take a stand on this stuff.
Which is largely how the web was, before (non-porn) people realised they could make money on that network.
If your car stereo was the part that communicated with toll booths to let you onto a road, yes.
They don't want every day cops to have an unfiltered connection. They want a special organisation, very likely an unelected one, to sit in judgement. It's a lovely idea really.
How about "Would-be-pirate abuse"? ;)