Is this one of those funny translation things where we say 'fries' and you say 'chips' and we say 'chips' and you say 'crisps' and we say 'overpriced underwear store' and you say 'sex shop'? Because as far as I know, Victoria's Secret doesn't sell toys, whips, chains, or anything but expensive underwear. Though maybe that's what you meant by 'harder-core' and if so, yes, sex toys are harder-core than just plain old underwear.
But I don't think we should use the right to freedom to justify the right to privacy.
Rather than the right of 'freedom TO' I'd use my right of 'freedom FROM' to justify my right to privacy. What use is the freedom to engage in private activities if I do not have freedom from spying eyes?
Freedom isn't just about what actions you're capable of taking, it's also about the right to be free from certain actions taken against yourself.
All the colors are NOT present and rendered faithfully. You can see the dithering (on gradients, for example) on the built-in monitor. As a matter of fact, the video card of the MacBook CAN process millions of colors, which you can clearly see if you hook up an external monitor. The legal case here is that they advertised that their built-in monitor could display millions of colors, which it can't. That's false advertising, and the proper response to a giant corporation engaging in fraudulent practices is to start a class-action suit.
Shouldn't that be our Decepticon overlords? From what I hear, the Autobots don't really have many overlordish tendencies.
I saw the trailer. Not once did my favorite robot pair show up, the mini-cassette recorder guy with a mini-cassette that turned into a puma. Probably because a mini-cassette player is pretty useless unless the plot revolves around getting evidence off of an ancient answering machine tape.
Without getting into anything else in your diatribe, I'd like to point out that strictly speaking it wasn't the scientists who claimed the sun revolved around the Earth, it was church doctrine; it was the scientists who eventually disproved that notion. Modern scientists as we know them didn't exist until around Galileo, who was one of the first to use observation as a tool for understanding. Up until that point people gave more credence to the arguments of the 'scientist' who had the wealthier patron rather than falsifiable independent observation.
Incidentally, Galileo was the one jailed by the church for insisting that the Earth revolves around the sun.
I should have made it more clear that it was the phone number I objected to, along with (and more to the point) the invitation to contact said phone number. I disagree with your assessment that fear of lawsuits make it OK to anonymously post contact information in a public forum, because in this case it's a thinly-veiled and crude attempt at inciting vigilante mob justice. Not like AC is a political dissident, civil rights activist or corporate whistleblower here. There's no good reason to post this info AC except to avoid responsibility for a possible lawsuit, which in this case might be justified.
I'm not excusing what these teachers did, but leave their punishment to the judicial system.
Don't post this sort of info anonymously. If this is public information, what do you have to hide? Unless that's your ex-girlfriends phone number up there.
If you find yourself posting vigilante information anonymously, please ask yourself why you can't sign your name. If you think what you're doing is wrong, maybe you shouldn't do it. Not that I'm saying what you've done is illegal, just that you should really have the balls to take responsibility for this action. Anonymous attacks on people (even if justified) make me extremely suspicious.
In Ubuntu you change your screen resolution by clicking the System->Preferences->Screen Resoultion menu option and choosing your new resolution from the dialog that pops up
Unless your new monitor can handle more than 1280x1024 or is widescreen. Then it's back to editing obscure text files.
It doesn't appear to me that the BBC reporter 'lost it' at all -- it seems like he's using the same shouting technique on the Scientologist that the Scientologist was trying to use on him. Shouting, appearing angry, then stopping and asking if he understands in an effort to shock your opponent into listening while at the same time appearing reasonable. I'm not saying the BBC guy wasn't angry, but it seemed like he was in control of himself. Rational but loud.
we can all 'continue to enjoy content protected by AACS' by 'refreshing the encryption keys associated with their HD DVD and Blu-ray software players.'
I took this to mean 'your HD DVD player will be broken when you get home. You are required to jump through several hoops before it will work again. You see what happens when one of you steps out of line? We punish everyone else! Let that be a lesson to you."
You can monetize your ideas without using the term "Intellectual Property". Ideas aren't property, and knowledge is only as valuable as your marketing department.
I'd like to know what you think a seductive, easy and wrong answer to your question is, and what the difficult right answer is. Only because by asking it you imply that you know the answers. Why not tell the rest of us?
We've had people complain that stuff didn't show up right in browser X and we'd do a cost/benefit analysis on how long it would take to get our site working in X and usually the benefits far outweigh the costs. If somebody actually spends their time to call and says their browser doesn't work, chances are that a dozen more people just gave up and went elsewhere. Your 90% figure is a bad business decision: if you're trying to sell things to 100,000 people and 10,000 of them are turned away for browser issues, that's a huge incentive to work on that last 10%. My company will be happy to provide for the customers you are turning away.
As a consequence, we've made sure our sites work with 99% of the browser types that hit the sites, and we're always looking to include as much of the last 1% whenever possible.
Nice troll. Ad hominem attacks coupled with deliberate misunderstanding, and your only evidence is a web site with an obvious bias. At least when I pull statistics out of my ass, I don't pretend that they're not made up.
My assertion was that out of a given number of people, a certain percentage of them will flip out. If you make guns more available in general, the percentage of people flipping out who also have access to guns goes up. I never suggested that guns make people flip out, merely that ownership of a gun in no way guarantees your mental stability. You are a case in point.
Get that chip off your shoulder or you might flip out and shoot somebody.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to clarify: when I say 'underwear', I believe the translation is 'knickers'.
Is this one of those funny translation things where we say 'fries' and you say 'chips' and we say 'chips' and you say 'crisps' and we say 'overpriced underwear store' and you say 'sex shop'? Because as far as I know, Victoria's Secret doesn't sell toys, whips, chains, or anything but expensive underwear. Though maybe that's what you meant by 'harder-core' and if so, yes, sex toys are harder-core than just plain old underwear.
But I don't think we should use the right to freedom to justify the right to privacy.
Rather than the right of 'freedom TO' I'd use my right of 'freedom FROM' to justify my right to privacy. What use is the freedom to engage in private activities if I do not have freedom from spying eyes?
Freedom isn't just about what actions you're capable of taking, it's also about the right to be free from certain actions taken against yourself.
All the colors are NOT present and rendered faithfully. You can see the dithering (on gradients, for example) on the built-in monitor. As a matter of fact, the video card of the MacBook CAN process millions of colors, which you can clearly see if you hook up an external monitor. The legal case here is that they advertised that their built-in monitor could display millions of colors, which it can't. That's false advertising, and the proper response to a giant corporation engaging in fraudulent practices is to start a class-action suit.
Funny thing though, the frame houses seemed to flex a bit but the brick houses tended to rubble during earthquakes
Just a thought, but couldn't this be the reason you don't see many brick houses in California? Your anti-union story was cute, though.
Recondite
Pretextware.
Shouldn't that be our Decepticon overlords? From what I hear, the Autobots don't really have many overlordish tendencies.
I saw the trailer. Not once did my favorite robot pair show up, the mini-cassette recorder guy with a mini-cassette that turned into a puma. Probably because a mini-cassette player is pretty useless unless the plot revolves around getting evidence off of an ancient answering machine tape.
Without getting into anything else in your diatribe, I'd like to point out that strictly speaking it wasn't the scientists who claimed the sun revolved around the Earth, it was church doctrine; it was the scientists who eventually disproved that notion. Modern scientists as we know them didn't exist until around Galileo, who was one of the first to use observation as a tool for understanding. Up until that point people gave more credence to the arguments of the 'scientist' who had the wealthier patron rather than falsifiable independent observation.
Incidentally, Galileo was the one jailed by the church for insisting that the Earth revolves around the sun.
I should have made it more clear that it was the phone number I objected to, along with (and more to the point) the invitation to contact said phone number. I disagree with your assessment that fear of lawsuits make it OK to anonymously post contact information in a public forum, because in this case it's a thinly-veiled and crude attempt at inciting vigilante mob justice. Not like AC is a political dissident, civil rights activist or corporate whistleblower here. There's no good reason to post this info AC except to avoid responsibility for a possible lawsuit, which in this case might be justified.
I'm not excusing what these teachers did, but leave their punishment to the judicial system.
Don't post this sort of info anonymously. If this is public information, what do you have to hide? Unless that's your ex-girlfriends phone number up there.
If you find yourself posting vigilante information anonymously, please ask yourself why you can't sign your name. If you think what you're doing is wrong, maybe you shouldn't do it. Not that I'm saying what you've done is illegal, just that you should really have the balls to take responsibility for this action. Anonymous attacks on people (even if justified) make me extremely suspicious.
In Ubuntu you change your screen resolution by clicking the System->Preferences->Screen Resoultion menu option and choosing your new resolution from the dialog that pops up
Unless your new monitor can handle more than 1280x1024 or is widescreen. Then it's back to editing obscure text files.
It doesn't appear to me that the BBC reporter 'lost it' at all -- it seems like he's using the same shouting technique on the Scientologist that the Scientologist was trying to use on him. Shouting, appearing angry, then stopping and asking if he understands in an effort to shock your opponent into listening while at the same time appearing reasonable. I'm not saying the BBC guy wasn't angry, but it seemed like he was in control of himself. Rational but loud.
I remember starting my car one morning and the car thermometer read -37C
What's that in Fahrenheit?
'A Gungan Christmas'
Don't forget about Winnie the Pooh either. Boycott Disney!
That would never fly in my house.
Moreover, if they succeed in impeaching Cheney first then they will have removed the only good argument for NOT impeaching Bush: President Cheney.
Rule 1 of Photoshop: Pics lie. It still didn't happen.
Did anyone else think of this movie too? You know, the scene where she buries her boyfriend in the medicinal dirt to save his life?
You can monetize your ideas without using the term "Intellectual Property". Ideas aren't property, and knowledge is only as valuable as your marketing department.
I'd like to know what you think a seductive, easy and wrong answer to your question is, and what the difficult right answer is. Only because by asking it you imply that you know the answers. Why not tell the rest of us?
We've had people complain that stuff didn't show up right in browser X and we'd do a cost/benefit analysis on how long it would take to get our site working in X and usually the benefits far outweigh the costs. If somebody actually spends their time to call and says their browser doesn't work, chances are that a dozen more people just gave up and went elsewhere. Your 90% figure is a bad business decision: if you're trying to sell things to 100,000 people and 10,000 of them are turned away for browser issues, that's a huge incentive to work on that last 10%. My company will be happy to provide for the customers you are turning away.
As a consequence, we've made sure our sites work with 99% of the browser types that hit the sites, and we're always looking to include as much of the last 1% whenever possible.
I don't get why your post was modded as funny.
Nice troll. Ad hominem attacks coupled with deliberate misunderstanding, and your only evidence is a web site with an obvious bias. At least when I pull statistics out of my ass, I don't pretend that they're not made up.
My assertion was that out of a given number of people, a certain percentage of them will flip out. If you make guns more available in general, the percentage of people flipping out who also have access to guns goes up. I never suggested that guns make people flip out, merely that ownership of a gun in no way guarantees your mental stability. You are a case in point.
Get that chip off your shoulder or you might flip out and shoot somebody.