Note: I'm sure there are very many normal Christians there too, just that a minority really really give the rest a bad name (I hope to god they are a minority).
You are wrong. Most Republicans receive the majority of their support from these people. Democrats also receive their support, but to a lesser extent. That there are so many Republicans in government says that at least half the population is like this. Half is not a minority.
You could, but you wouldn't remember it. If say gravity stopped functioning for only a very brief moment, your brain would most likely forget that it ever happened. In fact, even if there were permanent side effects, you'd most likely end up rationalizing them away.
Does Google somehow have a monopoly on this information? I find it hard to believe that nobody else has done it. Unless Google Scholar is Good Enough (tm) that nobody else is going to bother.
But then, if Google can do it, I fail to see how anybody else cannot do it. In that case, then Google pulling out of China would only be bad for science until a competing service appears.
Maybe some of their pictures were taken from a double-decker bus. Then again, double-decker busses aren't in service in most places. They're prevailent in Britian, but the people there are used to not having privacy.
Singapore's stance doesn't surprise me. Their government is totalitarian and extremely repressive in nature, while still being pretty much a full democracy (it works due to their size and the by-and-large homogeneity of their most populous cultures). They don't value freedom so much as order and hence the rule of the law. If something helps enforce the law, regardless of what the law stipulates, then they'd be for it.
While I'm with most to jump on the anti-corporate bandwagon, many a slashdotter will agree that more free speech for all is universally better than less. When we start taking free speech away from those we don't want having it, we're really no better than the corporations who do the exact same thing.
That's BS. Corporations are non-entities. They are faux-persons. They don't have or deserve inalienable rights because they're not created by a Creator, but by people. I know this levels the playing field by allowing corporations to play on the same level as special interest groups and trade unions, but I think this is leveling the playing field the wrong way. It is a step backwards, not a step forwards. We should be restricting the abilities of the collective while encouraging individualism, not the other way around.
I quote from, ironically enough considering the media company bashing theme of these comments, MIB:
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
Corporations, unions, special interests, lobbies, their power over our government should be limited. Meanwhile, power should return to the individual. I don't know how this will come to be, or what form it will finally take, but the freedom that the internet provides and represents is probably a good first baby step into bring the government into line with the wishes of the people.
I'm not interested in being a "slashdotter," I'm fine as me, thank you very much. I don't follow a creed but my own. I don't march to anybody's drumming but mine. And despite my presence here, I certainly don't associate myself with a non-existent entity in order to feel accepted.
And I have read the relevant texts and made a judgment call that Microsoft is most likely not at fault. Even if say, somebody within MS had put pressure on NetSol to lock the domain, the fact that 1) NetSol complied even if they weren't legally obligated to do so and 2) Microsoft is apologizing for it puts the blame for this fiasco squarely on NetSol, and the burden of proof of innocence on their shoulders.
Not everything is black and white. Microsoft is not always evil, and Google's actions aren't always not evil. Apple is not always the underdog, and a POSIX-compliant operating system isn't always the best solution. It would do you well to recognize this lest you fall into the very same trap of blind devotion that you're so vehement about.
Reasonable prices, decent translations, and commitment to continue producing a series are all enormous factors. It's ridiculous to think that they can put out an inferior product, charge an arm and a leg for it, and expect to be able to compete with the often-superior fansubs.
The value of the NYT and other large newspapers isn't and shouldn't be just spitting out the latest breaking news. It should be about finding facts and figures, making meaningful comparisons and correlations that us normal people wouldn't be able to find.
For example, it'd be great if they provided insight into the number of recent robberies in a particular neighborhood when reporting a robbery. Or the amount of time service delays cost subway passengers per month in an article about subway service cuts and changes.
They don't even have to generate this data. They just need to be able to aggregate it, filter the meaningful from the irrelevant, and present it in the story. The reader comes to his or her own conclusions about society based on the presented information.
The purpose of the newspaper is to report facts. Social commentary belongs to a section called Opinions, and for a very good reason. If you wanted social commentary, go read a blog or a tabloid.
That'd be great for the purposes of mimicking biological eyes, i.e. a sensor for a general-purpose robot to keep data rates down. However, it wouldn't be good for photography or cinematography as an art at all. The idea is to capture both the minute details and the fast motion at the same time to create an experience that's a little different from reality. It's like HDR or UV photography. Our eyes don't have that kind of capability, yet we still would want to take such pictures.
Surprise! Change isn't always a good thing. Things can change for the worse. For example, going from living to dead is a huge lifestyle change. I don't imagine many people to think it'd be for the better.
"Viral" is beyond the scope of GGP's use case. GGP just wants a place to put the video so customers can access them after purchasing GGP's product. Perferably, I'm thinking GGP wants to have those videos streamed to the customer without cost to GGP.
YouTube is far from GGP's only choice, and one can argue, far from GGP's best choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Note: I'm sure there are very many normal Christians there too, just that a minority really really give the rest a bad name (I hope to god they are a minority).
You are wrong. Most Republicans receive the majority of their support from these people. Democrats also receive their support, but to a lesser extent. That there are so many Republicans in government says that at least half the population is like this. Half is not a minority.
You could, but you wouldn't remember it. If say gravity stopped functioning for only a very brief moment, your brain would most likely forget that it ever happened. In fact, even if there were permanent side effects, you'd most likely end up rationalizing them away.
there are no alternatives at all.
Does Google somehow have a monopoly on this information? I find it hard to believe that nobody else has done it. Unless Google Scholar is Good Enough (tm) that nobody else is going to bother.
But then, if Google can do it, I fail to see how anybody else cannot do it. In that case, then Google pulling out of China would only be bad for science until a competing service appears.
Maybe some of their pictures were taken from a double-decker bus. Then again, double-decker busses aren't in service in most places. They're prevailent in Britian, but the people there are used to not having privacy.
And it's not going to happen for one and only one reason: American apathy.
Singapore's stance doesn't surprise me. Their government is totalitarian and extremely repressive in nature, while still being pretty much a full democracy (it works due to their size and the by-and-large homogeneity of their most populous cultures). They don't value freedom so much as order and hence the rule of the law. If something helps enforce the law, regardless of what the law stipulates, then they'd be for it.
While I'm with most to jump on the anti-corporate bandwagon, many a slashdotter will agree that more free speech for all is universally better than less. When we start taking free speech away from those we don't want having it, we're really no better than the corporations who do the exact same thing.
That's BS. Corporations are non-entities. They are faux-persons. They don't have or deserve inalienable rights because they're not created by a Creator, but by people. I know this levels the playing field by allowing corporations to play on the same level as special interest groups and trade unions, but I think this is leveling the playing field the wrong way. It is a step backwards, not a step forwards. We should be restricting the abilities of the collective while encouraging individualism, not the other way around.
I quote from, ironically enough considering the media company bashing theme of these comments, MIB:
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
Corporations, unions, special interests, lobbies, their power over our government should be limited. Meanwhile, power should return to the individual. I don't know how this will come to be, or what form it will finally take, but the freedom that the internet provides and represents is probably a good first baby step into bring the government into line with the wishes of the people.
it'll also make you a better Slashdotter.
What exactly is that supposed to mean?
I'm not interested in being a "slashdotter," I'm fine as me, thank you very much. I don't follow a creed but my own. I don't march to anybody's drumming but mine. And despite my presence here, I certainly don't associate myself with a non-existent entity in order to feel accepted.
And I have read the relevant texts and made a judgment call that Microsoft is most likely not at fault. Even if say, somebody within MS had put pressure on NetSol to lock the domain, the fact that 1) NetSol complied even if they weren't legally obligated to do so and 2) Microsoft is apologizing for it puts the blame for this fiasco squarely on NetSol, and the burden of proof of innocence on their shoulders.
Not everything is black and white. Microsoft is not always evil, and Google's actions aren't always not evil. Apple is not always the underdog, and a POSIX-compliant operating system isn't always the best solution. It would do you well to recognize this lest you fall into the very same trap of blind devotion that you're so vehement about.
advertises its services with soft-core porn.
Their advertising screams "by geeks for geeks" to me.
A big player would get sued and expect the suit. The little player would cave before the lawsuit happens.
Unfortunately, there's no brake function to go along with it.
Most people aren't looking for falun gong. Instead, they're probably looking for Jay Chow.
I agree. They should've called it the Ninja Party.
Reasonable prices, decent translations, and commitment to continue producing a series are all enormous factors. It's ridiculous to think that they can put out an inferior product, charge an arm and a leg for it, and expect to be able to compete with the often-superior fansubs.
The value of the NYT and other large newspapers isn't and shouldn't be just spitting out the latest breaking news. It should be about finding facts and figures, making meaningful comparisons and correlations that us normal people wouldn't be able to find.
For example, it'd be great if they provided insight into the number of recent robberies in a particular neighborhood when reporting a robbery. Or the amount of time service delays cost subway passengers per month in an article about subway service cuts and changes.
They don't even have to generate this data. They just need to be able to aggregate it, filter the meaningful from the irrelevant, and present it in the story. The reader comes to his or her own conclusions about society based on the presented information.
The purpose of the newspaper is to report facts. Social commentary belongs to a section called Opinions, and for a very good reason. If you wanted social commentary, go read a blog or a tabloid.
design systems which are inherently as secure as is possible
Fixed that for ya.
The new strategy basically creates 'hyper-fast nuclear reactions able to eat away at the dangerous nuclear waste.'
Yeah, I remember that. I think he called it an explosion.
That'd be great for the purposes of mimicking biological eyes, i.e. a sensor for a general-purpose robot to keep data rates down. However, it wouldn't be good for photography or cinematography as an art at all. The idea is to capture both the minute details and the fast motion at the same time to create an experience that's a little different from reality. It's like HDR or UV photography. Our eyes don't have that kind of capability, yet we still would want to take such pictures.
But it contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer.
This finding can only mean one thing: Space dolphins passed by billions of years ago, dropped some bricks behind, and we resulted.
facts about how much better things are up there.
Well, it's been warm there, and there hasn't been too much snow to shovel, that's for sure.
You can't outright get rid of marriage. You have to replace them with something, i.e. civil unions.
That should solve the matter once and for all.
Surprise! Change isn't always a good thing. Things can change for the worse. For example, going from living to dead is a huge lifestyle change. I don't imagine many people to think it'd be for the better.
"Viral" is beyond the scope of GGP's use case. GGP just wants a place to put the video so customers can access them after purchasing GGP's product. Perferably, I'm thinking GGP wants to have those videos streamed to the customer without cost to GGP.
YouTube is far from GGP's only choice, and one can argue, far from GGP's best choice.
Funny thing about computer programs: You can sort of turn that go-cart into a formula 1 with nothing more than time.