you have to bear in mind the application of that technology: they were manipulating tiny fragments of corrupt video data. this inteface is very good for viewing graphical fragments, but i see less of an application for - say - word-processing.
a blog is pretty much any site with dated entries.
and a journalist is pretty much anyone who attempts to report or comment on things that happen.
that's pretty much all there is to it.
in other words:
there are now another 200 websites that want to trick you intto installing malicious software, or use loopholes in your browser to do the same.
and this is news why?
oh yes, it contains the word 'blog'. that makes it interesting. and new.
but the riaa isn't a regulating body?
oh wait, they have the riaa 'enforcers' who dress up like swat teams and 'storm' premises where they belive there to be breaches of riaa doctrine.
'It may be different in the U.S., though.'
no, in the us, the scientists aren't less logical, it's the senators: the need to posses som - ah - 'faith sympathetic viewpoints' to be elected in certain states. thus, their votes lead to funding for some less-than-objective scientific studies.
'I'd seriously question the statement "Many scientists are creationists" though.'
no, i have no doubt that they're creationists. i'd just question whether they're scientists.
once you start discarding evidence in face of faith, you're not really qualified to interpret the results of your experiments.
but it's a caonjecture based on faith, and faith is immutable, even in the face of the strongest evidence, especially when the faithful believe that there's a reason for the sentient universe to trick them into making mistakes.
and iTunes. we had to wait ages for it. and then we had to pay twice as many pounds as you do dollars (£1$2). the US is by no means an open web service.
Slashdot Mirror
no, dead would do: it's much easier to sue an estate: they tend not to defend themselves so well.
you have to bear in mind the application of that technology: they were manipulating tiny fragments of corrupt video data. this inteface is very good for viewing graphical fragments, but i see less of an application for - say - word-processing.
less so if you rest your elbows on the table. it's a lot like pottery, actually.
cruise. as in top gun.
i see two 'websense' [connotation: knight in shining armour] 'blog' [connotation: tool of evil]
a blog is pretty much any site with dated entries. and a journalist is pretty much anyone who attempts to report or comment on things that happen. that's pretty much all there is to it.
in other words: there are now another 200 websites that want to trick you intto installing malicious software, or use loopholes in your browser to do the same. and this is news why? oh yes, it contains the word 'blog'. that makes it interesting. and new.
i'm still praying for myxamatosis
but the riaa isn't a regulating body? oh wait, they have the riaa 'enforcers' who dress up like swat teams and 'storm' premises where they belive there to be breaches of riaa doctrine.
'That will be awful waste of taxpayers money. my 2 cents.' probably something like that, maybe a few more, depends how tax evasion works out.
because faith is absolute and immutable, even in the face of the strongest evidence.
firefox is quite clearly orange and blue. of course it will work. everyone knows that blue works with orange styling.
'It may be different in the U.S., though.' no, in the us, the scientists aren't less logical, it's the senators: the need to posses som - ah - 'faith sympathetic viewpoints' to be elected in certain states. thus, their votes lead to funding for some less-than-objective scientific studies.
'I'd seriously question the statement "Many scientists are creationists" though.' no, i have no doubt that they're creationists. i'd just question whether they're scientists. once you start discarding evidence in face of faith, you're not really qualified to interpret the results of your experiments.
but it's a caonjecture based on faith, and faith is immutable, even in the face of the strongest evidence, especially when the faithful believe that there's a reason for the sentient universe to trick them into making mistakes.
exactly the quote that i was going to cite
did they?
but it's nonetheless restricted
and iTunes. we had to wait ages for it. and then we had to pay twice as many pounds as you do dollars (£1$2). the US is by no means an open web service.
'a UK based proxy' - like - for instance - highly-focused english-english translations on google.co.uk?
who, oh why did they choose real-player. could they have made a more foolish decision?
his universe! dammit, i want a universe all to myself (and the films that my fans make there).