I think his point is that he wont, because the history books are better written, and Silmarillion was boring or otherwise unreadable. Your argument that they're the same thing in essence has absolutely nothing to do with what he said.
I would ask WTF is wrong with people who think that "Americans" function as a cohesive unit that can be brought to task for the actions of any single voice. It's also quite a bold (and I would bet everything I own, wrong) assumption that everything you're complaining about from this article was posted by Americans.
It's a discussion about Chinese space plans, how is discussion of other operators in the same arena not relevant and welcomed? Why did you come here if all you wanted was a "Good for you, China. I wish you the best." What's wrong with talking about how the US would have more money for similar projects if their wasn't a war in Iraq, or how China is such a media darling these days despite a terrible record of violence and oppression? What's wrong with talking about how the media is making up names for astronauts based on nationality for no real reason?
In short, why have "discussion" about topics if you only want to talk about them in a vacuum, a fantasy world where the only source of information, opinion, or impact, is from the article posted.
And you're a moron.
SZ 7 goes up with crew, 8 and 9 are unmanned. 10 goes up with crew. All dock together, none come back. How did the crew of 7 get home on the suspected Sept 28th date. Jump?
A bicycle that, most likely, was made in China? Is there a smug moral highground in "not supporting terrorism" and "keeping your rights" if you're selling out someone else and whittling away at our middle class?
Neither of which bother me personally, but it's hard to do much these days with a completely clean conscience. There's also nothing stopping them from looking at all these lovely security feeds to see you merrily riding through the same intersection that cars drive through, it's just not automated yet.
My 2001 Prizm can get 32mpg mixed highway and city (driving 75-90 on the highway) and I certainly think you're an asshole. Not because I'm impatient, but because people who can't keep a constant speed make things more dangerous to everyone who does as they constantly have to slow down or swerve around because they have no idea what the hell you're doing.
Seriously, I don't like either one of them, and I'll be damned if I'm voting for someone I don't want to be in office.
The point of voting is to select the best person for the job even if that means writing in your best friend Larry who knows a lot about foreign policy. The electoral college wouldn't have been put in place to protect voters from themselves if it hadn't been intended that people would say exactly what they wanted with their votes.
People always voting for the lesser of two evils is the exact reason that we only have two real political parties as well as the reason that they're more or less indistinguishable and the reason that neither one of them is going anywhere.
I'm voting Bull Moose just to spite your lack of spirit.
He's not complaining that Russian company got mentioned, he's complaining that a Russian company got mentioned because it's competition to Google. His statement is that there's probably a company in every country that competes with Google, so why is this one worth noting to anyone who lives outside of Russian borders?
The problem, as he and a number of other people have posted, is that the way unions work in other parts of the world is not the way unions work in the US.
Things like investment plans, insurance, legal assistance are all things that are provided by quite a few employers who have seen the value of competing with union benefits. The one thing they haven't been picking up is the the "us vs. them" labor mentality and the bureaucracy.
Your idea is a fine one though. How about instead of making it a group of similarly employed people you just open it up to everyone? It would make striking less effective, but really at this point in most industries striking is a lost cause anyway.
Last I checked the first people to complain about "The Mexicans" were the ones in Unions complaining that they don't have jobs anymore because "The Mexicans" took them.
I don't know anyone who complains about "the unions" who complains about "the mexicans" because none of them are trying to cling to an outdated business model that believes just because it used to be profitable to pay employees $17 an hour to put together widgets that it still is.
Domestic manufacturing has been a dying industry for as long as I've been alive, I'm wondering when people will stop making it their career choice.
That's funny, I work in the private sector and have never really had a problem with any of my employers or in the benefits they provide or the work I'm asked to do.
My entire family more or less work government jobs,city and state, all union, and they're all ready to smash their heads into the wall because their unfirable coworkers, and incompetent bosses are driving them up the wall.
THe people I meet in my day to day life who are vehemently pro-union either 1) Have never had to work with or for them 2) mad that they can't be paid more than their skills are worth.
Thankfully most people I meet are pretty indifferent about the situation.
The problem is someone with the drive to do so would come to Slashdot and be told, in hundreds of angry posts, that he has no right to do that and he's just as bad as the zombie botnet overlords. Of course he should have just done it, prayed for the best, and hoped that history would look kindly upon what's been done.
I would like to stroke my ego for the record. In the story announcing Chrome I tried to tell people that this is how Google functions and that just because something is open source doesn't mean that it isn't calling home, that's simply what Google does. I was told flat out that obvious that's not the case, "it's open source, duh!" obviously with that many people looking at the code someone would notice. I'm sure they did notice, doesn't change the fact that it's there.
Well score two for me:
1) It's watching.
2) People are already say taking the apologist attitude that it's fine that they're watching because they're only using it for marketing not for evil.
1) Bad publicity doesn't fly. Most people know that the aforementioned Google product watches what they do, people continue to use it anyway so you tell me that them saying "We watch your browsing, but don't worry, it's only a robot not a person." would cause a stir. Hasn't yet why would this be any different?
2) Another version? What kind of user base do you think the spying free offshoot of the Google browser would have? A small sliver of an already small sliver of the browser market? I'm not saying someone wouldn't do it, I'm just saying it wouldn't be much of a victory for open source.
Of course, they could just leave the browser intact and use any number of non-open source components, most of which already exist, and let those do their spying while claiming that everything trademark Google Non-Evil.
I'm undoing a pile of moderation by replying to you, but I guess that's how the system works.
Ron Paul did not vote in favor of outlawing abortion, he voted again the Federal Government denying the states authority to decide. Ron Paul, as a constitutionalists believes that the Federal government is only granted the powers specifically stated within the constitution and all other powers are defaulted to the states, which would include abortions.
I hope you just weren't aware of the logic but I fear you're just hear trolling.
Slashdot Mirror
You say that like Ghostbusters didn't bring us a world of laughs and entertainment...
(That's not sarcasm by the way.)
I think his point is that he wont, because the history books are better written, and Silmarillion was boring or otherwise unreadable. Your argument that they're the same thing in essence has absolutely nothing to do with what he said.
Until you discover that the original can be beat in less than three minutes if you know how.
Can't say much for replay value.
I would ask WTF is wrong with people who think that "Americans" function as a cohesive unit that can be brought to task for the actions of any single voice. It's also quite a bold (and I would bet everything I own, wrong) assumption that everything you're complaining about from this article was posted by Americans.
It's a discussion about Chinese space plans, how is discussion of other operators in the same arena not relevant and welcomed? Why did you come here if all you wanted was a "Good for you, China. I wish you the best." What's wrong with talking about how the US would have more money for similar projects if their wasn't a war in Iraq, or how China is such a media darling these days despite a terrible record of violence and oppression? What's wrong with talking about how the media is making up names for astronauts based on nationality for no real reason?
In short, why have "discussion" about topics if you only want to talk about them in a vacuum, a fantasy world where the only source of information, opinion, or impact, is from the article posted.
You're assuming we have any intention of paying it back. People have been making that mistake for years...
Sibling answered the question actually, the 7 splits apart and only part remains in space.
And you're a moron. SZ 7 goes up with crew, 8 and 9 are unmanned. 10 goes up with crew. All dock together, none come back. How did the crew of 7 get home on the suspected Sept 28th date. Jump?
A bicycle that, most likely, was made in China? Is there a smug moral highground in "not supporting terrorism" and "keeping your rights" if you're selling out someone else and whittling away at our middle class?
Neither of which bother me personally, but it's hard to do much these days with a completely clean conscience. There's also nothing stopping them from looking at all these lovely security feeds to see you merrily riding through the same intersection that cars drive through, it's just not automated yet.
To back that up, just last year a couple of Coke employees got caught trying to sell trade secrets about some new products to Pepsi.
Who contacted the authorities? Pepsi.
I'm not complaining about gas prices at all.
My 2001 Prizm can get 32mpg mixed highway and city (driving 75-90 on the highway) and I certainly think you're an asshole. Not because I'm impatient, but because people who can't keep a constant speed make things more dangerous to everyone who does as they constantly have to slow down or swerve around because they have no idea what the hell you're doing.
If they weren't threatening your person (ie with the use of lethal weapons) they wouldn't get very far as pirates, would they?
Do you think they just ask politely and hope the crews hand it over in the spirit of giving? Are you retarded?
Because they aren't? Most pirates aren't known for their non-lethal pacification technology.
Seriously, I don't like either one of them, and I'll be damned if I'm voting for someone I don't want to be in office.
The point of voting is to select the best person for the job even if that means writing in your best friend Larry who knows a lot about foreign policy. The electoral college wouldn't have been put in place to protect voters from themselves if it hadn't been intended that people would say exactly what they wanted with their votes.
People always voting for the lesser of two evils is the exact reason that we only have two real political parties as well as the reason that they're more or less indistinguishable and the reason that neither one of them is going anywhere.
I'm voting Bull Moose just to spite your lack of spirit.
Well most people can safely use any form of DRM, everyone on this topic should just go home I guess.
I think you missed his point.
He's not complaining that Russian company got mentioned, he's complaining that a Russian company got mentioned because it's competition to Google. His statement is that there's probably a company in every country that competes with Google, so why is this one worth noting to anyone who lives outside of Russian borders?
Solid rebuttal.
The problem, as he and a number of other people have posted, is that the way unions work in other parts of the world is not the way unions work in the US.
Things like investment plans, insurance, legal assistance are all things that are provided by quite a few employers who have seen the value of competing with union benefits. The one thing they haven't been picking up is the the "us vs. them" labor mentality and the bureaucracy.
Your idea is a fine one though. How about instead of making it a group of similarly employed people you just open it up to everyone? It would make striking less effective, but really at this point in most industries striking is a lost cause anyway.
Last I checked the first people to complain about "The Mexicans" were the ones in Unions complaining that they don't have jobs anymore because "The Mexicans" took them.
I don't know anyone who complains about "the unions" who complains about "the mexicans" because none of them are trying to cling to an outdated business model that believes just because it used to be profitable to pay employees $17 an hour to put together widgets that it still is.
Domestic manufacturing has been a dying industry for as long as I've been alive, I'm wondering when people will stop making it their career choice.
That's funny, I work in the private sector and have never really had a problem with any of my employers or in the benefits they provide or the work I'm asked to do.
My entire family more or less work government jobs,city and state, all union, and they're all ready to smash their heads into the wall because their unfirable coworkers, and incompetent bosses are driving them up the wall. THe people I meet in my day to day life who are vehemently pro-union either 1) Have never had to work with or for them 2) mad that they can't be paid more than their skills are worth.
Thankfully most people I meet are pretty indifferent about the situation.
The problem is someone with the drive to do so would come to Slashdot and be told, in hundreds of angry posts, that he has no right to do that and he's just as bad as the zombie botnet overlords. Of course he should have just done it, prayed for the best, and hoped that history would look kindly upon what's been done.
I would like to stroke my ego for the record. In the story announcing Chrome I tried to tell people that this is how Google functions and that just because something is open source doesn't mean that it isn't calling home, that's simply what Google does. I was told flat out that obvious that's not the case, "it's open source, duh!" obviously with that many people looking at the code someone would notice. I'm sure they did notice, doesn't change the fact that it's there.
Well score two for me:
1) It's watching.
2) People are already say taking the apologist attitude that it's fine that they're watching because they're only using it for marketing not for evil.
You think 91% of people at retirement age are infirm and broke? I'm pretty sure the AARP would beg to differ.
1) Bad publicity doesn't fly. Most people know that the aforementioned Google product watches what they do, people continue to use it anyway so you tell me that them saying "We watch your browsing, but don't worry, it's only a robot not a person." would cause a stir. Hasn't yet why would this be any different?
2) Another version? What kind of user base do you think the spying free offshoot of the Google browser would have? A small sliver of an already small sliver of the browser market? I'm not saying someone wouldn't do it, I'm just saying it wouldn't be much of a victory for open source.
Of course, they could just leave the browser intact and use any number of non-open source components, most of which already exist, and let those do their spying while claiming that everything trademark Google Non-Evil.
I'm undoing a pile of moderation by replying to you, but I guess that's how the system works. Ron Paul did not vote in favor of outlawing abortion, he voted again the Federal Government denying the states authority to decide. Ron Paul, as a constitutionalists believes that the Federal government is only granted the powers specifically stated within the constitution and all other powers are defaulted to the states, which would include abortions.
I hope you just weren't aware of the logic but I fear you're just hear trolling.