I got it as meaning something closer to "there are plenty of ways to make money off YouTube, but none of them are profitable enough to justify paying $1.6 billion", which is, generally speaking, a shitload of money.
I certainly do, ever night when I have to cover my computer from highschool with a blanket so I can sleep. One of these days those LCD fans are going out the window.
Actually the 17th and 18th centuries weren't looking too good either, something about worry about local boarder disputes and being over-run by technologically superior colonizers or some such.
The latter part is why I only fly with carry-on if at all possible. My friend just came back from a trip with his family and had nothing to bring with him on a trip taken with me and a couple friends because all of his luggage was somewhere between the UK, the US, and God only knows.
I'll glady wear a pair of pants twice if it means the pants will be in my possession the whole time.
I don't know if you've ever played roulette in Vegas, but cutting out the "impulse betting" phase where hapless addicts are throwing chips away like water because they somehow think they've got it figured out now would cost them far more than the short term losses from the occassional cheater. Short term of course because once they declare you a cheater, or have other reason to believe you couldn't win the money in the first place they tend to put up a real nasty fight when you try to cash out.
I'll admit that I don't fly regularly, but that's never happened to me, and furthermore it seems to defeat the purpose and definition of "carry-on" luggage.
I live in a major campus town, and get to watch this horror every day. Even with abundent bike lanes and slow moving traffic cyclist still feel the need to drive in between cars, acts as cars going with trafic, act as pedestrians going perpendicular to trafic, ride on the sidewalk until they hop the curb at random and cut without looking through streets.
There are plenty of good natured eco-conscious bike riders out there, unfortunately in my experience they are not the majority, and when they end up getting hit by a car because they assumed bikes have some God-given right-of-way all I can do is shake my head.
IANAML but,
As your parent posted, and I will expand, they aren't POWs. Prisoners of war are uniformed soldiers of an enemy nation, unlawful combatents the designation that most people, for whatever reason, just assume Bush made up to be a facist, is for un-uniformed fighters not affiliated with an enemy governemnt. The term originates from WWII and the need to prosecute German citizens of the US working independent of the German governement who sabataged shipping on East Coast. That's why they're in tribunals, even if they're not called POWs, that's why it doesn't matter if Padilla is a citizen.
My recollection may be far beyond rusty.
I would think that if the spammer is paying tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars every month in bandwidth costs the carriers will probably play dumb for as long as possible. As much as ISPs hate the cost of delivering spam I'm sure they love getting paid to send it.
Or, if you're a former marine, you pull a knife in the face of four assailents, two of which are armed with firearms. You kill one of your assailents, hospitalize another of them, and force the other two to flee on foot be arrested later.
Happened in Athens, GA, wish I still had a link tot he news story. It incredible what can happen when a situation involves a trained and ready individual and a group who thought that a show of force would be all it took.
The FBI estimates that every year over 3 million crimes are prevented by the mere brandishing of a firearm. Despite what you may beleive, most criminals, even those with guns, are not looking to injure or kill their victims. Most robbers would be perfectly content with you simply handing them your valuables and allowing them to flee into the night so you can call it in on your cell phone (which they probably stole, woops) and give the police a vague description of the man you think you saw who will likely never be caught. Most people who break into homes choose to do it when the occupants aren't home for the same reason, any opportunity to avoid confrontation is an opportunity worth looking in to.
Which is exactly why I'd be deeply worried about the guy who breaks into your house while you're home asleep, or even better awake. That shows a certain level of desperation that can quickly turn violent. I own firearms because I enjoy shooting as a hobby. I live in safe city where violent crime is fairly limited, in a good neighborhood where I know all my neighbors and they know me. The personal defense ideal barely seems to apply to me, one would think, but I will say that I certainly feel that much safer knowing that should, by any twist of fate, someone unlawfully enter my home they get one warning about leaving before you can reasonably say that you felt your safety was in danger, and in this country the courts still protect the victims safety over the victimizers. (At least in most states, I've heard NJ can be a little different)
It's a lot easier to give the government the benifit of the doubt when you've got some form of recourse should things be pushed too far.
More importantly though, Bush didn't "give" anyone guns. Infact Bush has had almost nothing to do with gun control one way or the other, certainly less than Clinton, who I loved dearly, but was responsible for the most poorly thought out, ineffective, gun control legislation in memory. If Bush were to start mailing out guns maybe I would have voted for him in the last election, I'll admit I have a price.
With endless argument and by allowing people with specialization in their various feilds some level of control in those areas. It's not really any worse of a plan than hiring one arrogant, ivory-tower super ego, used to having everything his own way, who may have no experience actually running a company, to be given complete control to be an absolutly unchecked arrogant, ivory-tower super ego, who does get everything his own way. If nothing else you can put them to work answering phones and save money on an office staff.
Re:Hypothetical question: "lusers" as decoys
on
A Closed Off System?
·
· Score: 1
You could say the same thing about locking your doors at night making burglers smarter because they can't just walk right in.
There's a certain level of difficulty where it no longer becomes easy enough and profitable enough to be a malware producer, and if we could simply bring everyone up to that level I think we'd all be better off. Sure some of them would stay in business, just like some criminals have no issue kicking down doors and smashing windows, but a lot can be accomplished by eliminating so-called "casual theft" where valuables are just left out in the open.
It is a state thing, our lucky friends in Texas, and I believe Arizona and Nevada can walk in, buy and handgun and walk out in the same time it takes to buy anything else.
It's illegal to make handgun ammunition availible to persons under 21, just as it's illegal to make handguns availible to them. The.22LR sits in limbo because it's a very popular round for both rifles and pistols. Selling it to you for rifle shooting is perfectly legal, selling it to you for pistol shooting is a felony.
The Walmarts I've seen have it locked up with everything else for just that reason.
Not the OP but from what I heard from my friends who just got back from carribean cruise that it's something like 1 gallon for 4 inches. That was from one of the floating fortress size ones. Theirs had four different sets of multiple elevators as well as an indoor swimming pool. (god only knows why)
I don't think it's any more computer than say... the original X-Box that was literally PC hardware crammed in a console case. Except of course that it maintains quite a bit more computer functionality than the X-Box did.
My point, as your sibling poster also missed completely, is that he isn't the target audience for next gen systems not because he isn't a hardcore gaming looking to spend $600, but because he's a retro gamer who in reality needs to spend absolutely nothing to get exactly what he wants. He has as much reason to buy a Wi as my dead grandmother does, that's why he isn't "the target audience."
I think $600 is ludicrous, I wont pay it. I'm not trying to defend Sony, I'm trying to defend the logic of not buying something if you don't really have a reason to.
The point of the matter, whether you caught it or not, is that he's buying a Wi, but infact he doesn't really need to buy anything. None of the next gen console offer him, as per what he states he does, anything that he doesn't already have. That is why he isn't their intended audience, much the same way agoraphobics who work at home are not the target audience for next years cars and tampons are not designed for a mans comfort.
The PS3 could be $120, he's still not who they're aiming for because he isn't intersted in "buying our new games" or for the most part even "playing the new games"
Slashdot Mirror
I got it as meaning something closer to "there are plenty of ways to make money off YouTube, but none of them are profitable enough to justify paying $1.6 billion", which is, generally speaking, a shitload of money.
I certainly do, ever night when I have to cover my computer from highschool with a blanket so I can sleep. One of these days those LCD fans are going out the window.
Actually the 17th and 18th centuries weren't looking too good either, something about worry about local boarder disputes and being over-run by technologically superior colonizers or some such.
Canada will just covertly water board them if the need ever arrises, you should appreciate the US' honesty.
Doesn't work with women and I doubt it works here...
The latter part is why I only fly with carry-on if at all possible. My friend just came back from a trip with his family and had nothing to bring with him on a trip taken with me and a couple friends because all of his luggage was somewhere between the UK, the US, and God only knows.
I'll glady wear a pair of pants twice if it means the pants will be in my possession the whole time.
Good point, why not get rid of due process, police accountability, and privacy all together.
I mean only criminals will suffer, right?
I don't know if you've ever played roulette in Vegas, but cutting out the "impulse betting" phase where hapless addicts are throwing chips away like water because they somehow think they've got it figured out now would cost them far more than the short term losses from the occassional cheater. Short term of course because once they declare you a cheater, or have other reason to believe you couldn't win the money in the first place they tend to put up a real nasty fight when you try to cash out.
I'll admit that I don't fly regularly, but that's never happened to me, and furthermore it seems to defeat the purpose and definition of "carry-on" luggage.
I live in a major campus town, and get to watch this horror every day. Even with abundent bike lanes and slow moving traffic cyclist still feel the need to drive in between cars, acts as cars going with trafic, act as pedestrians going perpendicular to trafic, ride on the sidewalk until they hop the curb at random and cut without looking through streets. There are plenty of good natured eco-conscious bike riders out there, unfortunately in my experience they are not the majority, and when they end up getting hit by a car because they assumed bikes have some God-given right-of-way all I can do is shake my head.
IANAML but, As your parent posted, and I will expand, they aren't POWs. Prisoners of war are uniformed soldiers of an enemy nation, unlawful combatents the designation that most people, for whatever reason, just assume Bush made up to be a facist, is for un-uniformed fighters not affiliated with an enemy governemnt. The term originates from WWII and the need to prosecute German citizens of the US working independent of the German governement who sabataged shipping on East Coast. That's why they're in tribunals, even if they're not called POWs, that's why it doesn't matter if Padilla is a citizen. My recollection may be far beyond rusty.
I would think that if the spammer is paying tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars every month in bandwidth costs the carriers will probably play dumb for as long as possible. As much as ISPs hate the cost of delivering spam I'm sure they love getting paid to send it.
I can confirm that as of year ago Wisconsin was still using MIPS and I haven't heard any word on a change since then.
Or, if you're a former marine, you pull a knife in the face of four assailents, two of which are armed with firearms. You kill one of your assailents, hospitalize another of them, and force the other two to flee on foot be arrested later. Happened in Athens, GA, wish I still had a link tot he news story. It incredible what can happen when a situation involves a trained and ready individual and a group who thought that a show of force would be all it took.
The FBI estimates that every year over 3 million crimes are prevented by the mere brandishing of a firearm. Despite what you may beleive, most criminals, even those with guns, are not looking to injure or kill their victims. Most robbers would be perfectly content with you simply handing them your valuables and allowing them to flee into the night so you can call it in on your cell phone (which they probably stole, woops) and give the police a vague description of the man you think you saw who will likely never be caught. Most people who break into homes choose to do it when the occupants aren't home for the same reason, any opportunity to avoid confrontation is an opportunity worth looking in to.
Which is exactly why I'd be deeply worried about the guy who breaks into your house while you're home asleep, or even better awake. That shows a certain level of desperation that can quickly turn violent. I own firearms because I enjoy shooting as a hobby. I live in safe city where violent crime is fairly limited, in a good neighborhood where I know all my neighbors and they know me. The personal defense ideal barely seems to apply to me, one would think, but I will say that I certainly feel that much safer knowing that should, by any twist of fate, someone unlawfully enter my home they get one warning about leaving before you can reasonably say that you felt your safety was in danger, and in this country the courts still protect the victims safety over the victimizers. (At least in most states, I've heard NJ can be a little different)
It's a lot easier to give the government the benifit of the doubt when you've got some form of recourse should things be pushed too far.
More importantly though, Bush didn't "give" anyone guns. Infact Bush has had almost nothing to do with gun control one way or the other, certainly less than Clinton, who I loved dearly, but was responsible for the most poorly thought out, ineffective, gun control legislation in memory. If Bush were to start mailing out guns maybe I would have voted for him in the last election, I'll admit I have a price.
With endless argument and by allowing people with specialization in their various feilds some level of control in those areas. It's not really any worse of a plan than hiring one arrogant, ivory-tower super ego, used to having everything his own way, who may have no experience actually running a company, to be given complete control to be an absolutly unchecked arrogant, ivory-tower super ego, who does get everything his own way. If nothing else you can put them to work answering phones and save money on an office staff.
You could say the same thing about locking your doors at night making burglers smarter because they can't just walk right in.
There's a certain level of difficulty where it no longer becomes easy enough and profitable enough to be a malware producer, and if we could simply bring everyone up to that level I think we'd all be better off. Sure some of them would stay in business, just like some criminals have no issue kicking down doors and smashing windows, but a lot can be accomplished by eliminating so-called "casual theft" where valuables are just left out in the open.
It is a state thing, our lucky friends in Texas, and I believe Arizona and Nevada can walk in, buy and handgun and walk out in the same time it takes to buy anything else.
It's illegal to make handgun ammunition availible to persons under 21, just as it's illegal to make handguns availible to them. The .22LR sits in limbo because it's a very popular round for both rifles and pistols. Selling it to you for rifle shooting is perfectly legal, selling it to you for pistol shooting is a felony.
The Walmarts I've seen have it locked up with everything else for just that reason.
Obviously you aren't a file sharer, server, or just someone who uses instant messaging for a majority of your communication.
Not the OP but from what I heard from my friends who just got back from carribean cruise that it's something like 1 gallon for 4 inches. That was from one of the floating fortress size ones. Theirs had four different sets of multiple elevators as well as an indoor swimming pool. (god only knows why)
I'm glad you're not feeling holier than thou, that'd certainly be unattractive.
I don't think it's any more computer than say... the original X-Box that was literally PC hardware crammed in a console case. Except of course that it maintains quite a bit more computer functionality than the X-Box did.
Still way too expensive...
My point, as your sibling poster also missed completely, is that he isn't the target audience for next gen systems not because he isn't a hardcore gaming looking to spend $600, but because he's a retro gamer who in reality needs to spend absolutely nothing to get exactly what he wants. He has as much reason to buy a Wi as my dead grandmother does, that's why he isn't "the target audience."
I think $600 is ludicrous, I wont pay it. I'm not trying to defend Sony, I'm trying to defend the logic of not buying something if you don't really have a reason to.
The point of the matter, whether you caught it or not, is that he's buying a Wi, but infact he doesn't really need to buy anything. None of the next gen console offer him, as per what he states he does, anything that he doesn't already have. That is why he isn't their intended audience, much the same way agoraphobics who work at home are not the target audience for next years cars and tampons are not designed for a mans comfort.
The PS3 could be $120, he's still not who they're aiming for because he isn't intersted in "buying our new games" or for the most part even "playing the new games"