“I’m Catholic; we do not contracept,” Ms. Smith said. “It is a grave sin.” By including those pages in the curriculum, she added, “you have violated my religious rights.”
Her agenda is to make everyone Catholic.
And on that point, she should be removed from her position on Constitutional grounds.
Small metal cylinder with rechargeable battery and a head of little pins that prints one letter at a time as you move it across the paper. Voice input, of course.
Hilarity would ensue when several people are attempting to use voice input for note taking in class, or in a meeting.
Also as a final thought on this matter (unless I think of more to add later), I am also pretty certain I would not like Crunchy Frog, Ram's Bladder Cup, Anthrax Ripple, or Spring Surprise either.
I could have sworn it was being reduced to 20 grams...
Why do they even need chocolate on Mars? The only thing there so far is robots. I understand that we should pre-position supplies before sending colonists, but chocolate is not exactly a mission priority.
They do need it real bad there on Mars. Without it, how would hawt princesses like Thuvia or Deja Thoris maintain their proper feminine figures?
They could alleviate some of this problem by contacting the people who run Trader Joe's. They have this one dark chocolate bar (can't recall the name of it) that is so nasty and bitter, that it is inedible completely (unless you dip it in honey, then it is barely tolerable). It is worse than baking chocolate and is actually sold as if it is intended to be eaten like a normal bar of chocolate. If they just full stop quit producing that travesty, perhaps that could free up chocolate resources for other uses for perhaps another year or so.
So then, since the customers were not able to see any pre-release reviews before purchasing, will Ubisoft refund their purchase price, or just flip them the middle finger and say, "Sorry suckers. We got your money. You know the industry standard is "No returns. Too bad so sad for you. Please come again."
From the statement of the spokesperson, this really isn't because they think Google Glass is a threat. They are putting this in place so as future, higher quality devices come out, they are already covered.
Of course, this isn't going to do them any good when such future, higher quality devices are designed in such a way that unless the owner actually blabbed about it, no one would even know that they were wearing such a higher quality recording device. Surely the technology will advance to the point to where such devices will be so seamless in one's glasses or whatever it may be installed upon, that they will be undetectable.
The MPAA took the most restrictive course possible on keeping their movies from being reproduced without them getting a share. And in this case, they're well within their right. You bought a ticket to see the movie once. That does not give you a right to record it yourself. If you don't like their terms, don't buy the ticket.
Now, if I buy a copy of a movie for me to legally enjoy in the privacy of my home, but they impose technological restrictions that prevent me from doing so, then I'll bother to get upset.
To play devil's advocate here, why? They "took the most restrictive course possible on keeping their movies from being reproduced without them getting a share." You bought a copy of a movie to watch on their terms. That does not give you a right to watch it on other terms. If you don't like their terms, don't buy the DVD or Blu-Ray.
Watching a movie purchased on DVD or other physical media does not require clicking "I Agree" first before it can be viewed. And even if it did, so what? If I purchase a movie on DVD, and I want to run it through DVDFab to turn it into an ISO to watch right off my hard drive instead of having to have the physical disc in the drive, I will. If I want to convert it to a format that I can view on my PSP, or on a tablet, or even on my smart phone, I will. I will do whatever the hell I want with the copy I legally purchased (short of distributing copies to other people of course).
I do not give a flying fuck what "protective measures" were put on the original media. If the publishers do not like it, they are cordially invited to go fuck themselves. They got paid for the DVD from its first sale (whether I was the original purchaser, or the original purchaser was the one who donated it to the Goodwill from whence I subsequently purchased it.) Their rights over that copy (with some obvious exceptions) end with that first sale.
Oh yeah, and as an afterthought, as I always see on ads for movies... "Own it today on DVD or Blu-Ray!"
Any sort of securista ploy to invade private property like this that starts with "think of the children" should be automatically subject to Reductio ad Hitlerum.
And any government official who so readily argues that "protection of children" is the reason for any measure they want to put forth, no matter how heavily such a measure can and will be misused and abused, should be summarily removed from office right then and there and be banned for life from any public servant position.
Slashdot Mirror
I for one will not buy the newest episode fixing that - and Han solo shot.
Fixed that for you. No need to say first, since there was no second.
“I’m Catholic; we do not contracept,” Ms. Smith said. “It is a grave sin.” By including those pages in the curriculum, she added, “you have violated my religious rights.”
Her agenda is to make everyone Catholic.
And on that point, she should be removed from her position on Constitutional grounds.
Whoops, "heroin" not "heroine". Stupid homophones.
Aw belgium. You caught it too soon.
And here I was all set to come up with something about how it is the villainess that you need to shoot, not the heroine. :D
Small metal cylinder with rechargeable battery and a head of little pins that prints one letter at a time as you move it across the paper.
Voice input, of course.
Hilarity would ensue when several people are attempting to use voice input for note taking in class, or in a meeting.
Then let me teach you a little bit of cursive. "Damn," "Hell," . . . //Bart Simpson reference
*** later, AC is thrown out of the discussion... ***
Never have I heard such gratuitous use of the word "butt"!
If they were going to put it to a vote, I would push for a gopher moat.
Also as a final thought on this matter (unless I think of more to add later), I am also pretty certain I would not like Crunchy Frog, Ram's Bladder Cup, Anthrax Ripple, or Spring Surprise either.
I guess I prefer chocolate that utilizes the sweet taste buds moreso than the bitter taste buds is all.
She is wearing more than how Burroughs initially described the Martian ladies.
How so? (if you are referring to my post as a fail). I got the 1984 reference loud and clear.
This is the one to avoid.
I could have sworn it was being reduced to 20 grams...
Why do they even need chocolate on Mars? The only thing there so far is robots. I understand that we should pre-position supplies before sending colonists, but chocolate is not exactly a mission priority.
They do need it real bad there on Mars. Without it, how would hawt princesses like Thuvia or Deja Thoris maintain their proper feminine figures?
They could alleviate some of this problem by contacting the people who run Trader Joe's. They have this one dark chocolate bar (can't recall the name of it) that is so nasty and bitter, that it is inedible completely (unless you dip it in honey, then it is barely tolerable). It is worse than baking chocolate and is actually sold as if it is intended to be eaten like a normal bar of chocolate. If they just full stop quit producing that travesty, perhaps that could free up chocolate resources for other uses for perhaps another year or so.
I could have sworn it was being reduced to 20 grams...
But they have not yet told us everything...
We are also out of coffee...
So then, since the customers were not able to see any pre-release reviews before purchasing, will Ubisoft refund their purchase price, or just flip them the middle finger and say, "Sorry suckers. We got your money. You know the industry standard is "No returns. Too bad so sad for you. Please come again."
"Information wants to be free. Nothing is taken from the people whose videos are posted."
Don't try to anthropomorphize information. It hates that.
To the Ontario Provincial Police,
You are hereby cordially invited to either: 1 - fuck off, 2 - bugger off, or 3 - piss off; whichever is the most commonly used expression in Canada.
Space exploration Deaths:
NASA: 10+ that I can think off off hand. Not including X-15 test pilots that died.
Private Industry: 1
I think for NASA, that is at least 17 (not counting deaths of test pilots from the X15 and other experimental aircraft)
Apollo 1 Launchpad Fire: 3
Space Shuttle Challenger: 7
Space Shuttle Columbia: 7
No mortgage on mine. I own it, not the bank.
From the statement of the spokesperson, this really isn't because they think Google Glass is a threat. They are putting this in place so as future, higher quality devices come out, they are already covered.
Of course, this isn't going to do them any good when such future, higher quality devices are designed in such a way that unless the owner actually blabbed about it, no one would even know that they were wearing such a higher quality recording device. Surely the technology will advance to the point to where such devices will be so seamless in one's glasses or whatever it may be installed upon, that they will be undetectable.
To play devil's advocate here, why? They "took the most restrictive course possible on keeping their movies from being reproduced without them getting a share." You bought a copy of a movie to watch on their terms. That does not give you a right to watch it on other terms. If you don't like their terms, don't buy the DVD or Blu-Ray.
Watching a movie purchased on DVD or other physical media does not require clicking "I Agree" first before it can be viewed. And even if it did, so what? If I purchase a movie on DVD, and I want to run it through DVDFab to turn it into an ISO to watch right off my hard drive instead of having to have the physical disc in the drive, I will. If I want to convert it to a format that I can view on my PSP, or on a tablet, or even on my smart phone, I will. I will do whatever the hell I want with the copy I legally purchased (short of distributing copies to other people of course).
I do not give a flying fuck what "protective measures" were put on the original media. If the publishers do not like it, they are cordially invited to go fuck themselves. They got paid for the DVD from its first sale (whether I was the original purchaser, or the original purchaser was the one who donated it to the Goodwill from whence I subsequently purchased it.) Their rights over that copy (with some obvious exceptions) end with that first sale.
Oh yeah, and as an afterthought, as I always see on ads for movies... "Own it today on DVD or Blu-Ray!"
Should Netflix send the MPAA a thank you card or a cake?
A pie would probably be preferred. We all know how untruthful cakes can be.
Autorefresh sucks too!
about:config
accessibility.blockautorefresh true
Any sort of securista ploy to invade private property like this that starts with "think of the children" should be automatically subject to Reductio ad Hitlerum.
And any government official who so readily argues that "protection of children" is the reason for any measure they want to put forth, no matter how heavily such a measure can and will be misused and abused, should be summarily removed from office right then and there and be banned for life from any public servant position.