All nonsensical rantings and ravings about Batman Begins aside, you seem to have missed the point. If you read the descriptions in TFA, you would note that very rarely did the article talk about whether the movie itself was good (with the possible exception of his reference to Army of Darkness as a cult flick). The article was specifically rating the DVDs on the HD advantages they provided: better sound and video quality, extras that utilize HD-only features, etc. Things like storyline, plot, dialog, etc. were never an issue for the reviewer. So it was entirely possible for a "bad" movie to be a "good" HD movie, or vice versa, based on the reviewer's rubric.
And I really hope you were confusing Batman Begins with one of the other movies, because if not, that just kills any slashdot-based geek cred you may have.
Not to try to disagree with a Real Lawyer, but I work in a law office, and while the Court may technically have to approve the dismissal of a case, I see cases every day where the plaintiff submits a voluntary dismissal order. Sometimes it's signed by a Judge, sometimes it just gets docketed as is. I suppose you could say that the Court had to approve the dismissal, but so often those things get rubber stamped, you may as well say that Plaintiff (not the Judge) was the one doing the dismissing.
If a plaintiff sends a voluntary dismissal order to the court, likelihood is a judge is not going to get in the plaintiff's way. I suppose you could say that only a judge can end it in that the court has to approve it, but often it's just a rubber stamping, in which case the plaintiff is the de facto dismissing party.
"Dropping" a case is not a legal term. Plaintiffs can agree to dismiss a defendant, dismiss or discontinue an entire case, etc. It's their case, they instituted it, and they can end it.
I've heard that they may try to simultaneously (or at least in scarily close succession) make a spinoff movie for SG1 and make a sequel to the original movie... as if they were two completely separate things. Which, if you look at the turns that SG1 has made, isn't too far from the truth.
He did a really good job of it. A scan of his last couple months of posts show that on average he gets about 3-5 comments per post (if he's lucky). With this google search term fiasco, he's been getting dozens of comments per post, the highest so far being 158 on one post alone.
When I was in a U.S. college, albeit a long time ago i.e. before Patriot Act and 9/11, I had the choide to use a random number as my student ID rather than my social security number. I remember hearing that the soc. security number is(was? pre 9/11) only required for social security and tax purposes. I think more places should start using other numbers. Although this wouldn't solve hacked identity theft, it is one less piece of information that the hackers get... Except that would just mean that when the hackers get their spreadsheet full of information on 800,000 people, they just have to remember to look to the "SSN" column instead of the "Student ID" column to get the information they want. The school will still collect your SSN whether they use it as your ID or not. The question merely becomes whether it is your SSN or some randomly generated number that they put on your ID card.
2. incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. e.g. "How ironic that someone who posted a story about "truthiness" doesn't even know how to use the term correctly." Do tell me in what dictionary you found that ridiculous misdefinition. Or did you just make it up because it suits your misuse of the word? Well, let's see. There's the American Heritage Dictionary: "2a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity."
Then there's Merriam-Webster: "(1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity."
Then of course there's Princeton's WordNet: "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs."
See, words can have what some people call "multiple meanings." Your definition may have been one possible definition, but it was not the appropriate definition for the situation.
I could go on, but your arrogant ignorance is starting to bore me.
Ironic that the post here misuses the word... Poster needs to look up the defintion of truthiness? Try parent needs to look up the definition of irony. Here, I'll help you out:
ironynoun (ironies) 1 a linguistic device or form of humour that takes its effect from stating or implying the opposite of what is the case or what is intended, eg saying 'You've made a really good job of that, haven't you', when someone has done something badly. 2. incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. e.g. "How ironic that someone who posted a story about "truthiness" doesn't even know how to use the term correctly."
You gotta admit that your use of "truthiness" in the last sentence was pretty awkward and contrived. If you have to go into such a pseudo-intellectual explanation of why you used it that way, you're trying way too hard. Remember, truthiness comes from the gut, not the head!
So, would that make it "ironic" that you jumped head first into a high-and-mighty rant at the GP over his misunderstanding of the definition of "ironic," when in fact it was you who misunderstood that he was actually referring to your mis-use of "truthiness"?
Nice try though with the call to mod GP down. If only I had some mod points right now. I know for sure I'd be modding someone down. I'll leave it to you to figure out who. Are you starting to understand?
BL is a comedy. Most comedies (other than "Office Space" of course) don't even try to be like real life. Except Shirley Schmidt. She's real. I've met her. You don't want to get in her way.
But your point is well taken for shows like Justice, Law & Order, The Practice, etc.
The summary is very misleading in the way that it describes HP as paying money to make the case disappear. This wasn't a criminal case where they were buying off a judge to rule favorably. This was a civil matter. and 99 times out of 100, civil matters are about one thing: money. They can either pay money in the settlement, pay money as a result of a judgment from a trial, be dismissed through a motion, or be found not guilty from a trial. Settlement is COMMON, because it allows both sides to save costs from not having to pay for a costly trial. And trials are MUCH more costly than most of what happens pre-trial.
This isn't some back-alley dealing, it's one legitimate and often used method of resolving civil disputes quickly and cost-effectively. And on top of that, it means that HP can't appeal the decision because they agreed to it. If the case had gone to trial and verdict and resulted in a decision HP didn't like, they could have appealed and kept the case going for years without resolution, while at the same time increasing both their costs and the costs of the state in trying the case.
In related news, Yahoo also makes sweeping changes to their site design, leading to buggy site behavior, slower load times, and general unrest among Yahoo's populace.
I had to replace three items on my old Toshiba laptop over the time I had it: fan, battery, and harddrive.
The first was the fan, and I was very impressed with the way Toshiba handled it. They didn't fuss or anything, they just asked which part I needed, said how much it cost, and asked if I wanted it shipped or if I wanted to pick it up at a distribution center. That one took I believe 8 screws to replace (4 on the fan and 4 to get the cover off).
The battery was a no-brainer of course, hardly worth mentioning.
The third to go was the harddrive, after I'd had the laptop for nearly 3 years. Not only did they replace it (without having to ship them anything but the harddrive itself), they did so for FREE because they said it was still under WARRANTY. And I thought all I had was 1 year parts and labor.
As you can see, your sentence doesn't mean anything!
Your solid grasp of googling shows us, once again, that the internet is just no replacement for a decent education...
Good comeback. Next time try attacking the argument rather than attacking the person. Maybe then they'll let you onto the debate team rather than cutting you in the first round of drafts.
And to top it all off, you completely missed my Indigo joke!
That would be Inigo, and it wasn't funny. Ooh, so I guess because I got on your case for completely misusing a term just to sound so much more intelligent than everyone else, you feel like you've got laissez-faire to make fun of me for a minor misspelling. Nice. So much for sounding intelligent.
An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.... Noninterference in the affairs of others.... An economic theory from the 18th century that is strongly opposed to any government intervention in business affairs. Sometimes referred to as "Let it be economics."... People who support a laissez faire system are against minimum wages, duties, and any other trade restrictions.... French for "leave alone."... Of, relating to, or being an economy devoid of government interference.... With minimally restricted freedom in commerce.
A French phrase meaning "let do, let go, let pass." From the French diction first used by the eighteenth century Physiocrats as an injunction against government interference with trade, it became used as a synonym for strict free market economics during the early and mid-19th century. It is generally understood to be a doctrine that maintains that private initiative and production is best to roam free, opposing economic interventionism and taxation by the state beyond that which is perceived to be necessary to maintain peace, security, and property rights....
The term laissez-faire is often used interchangeably with the term "free market." Some may use the term laissez-faire to refer to "let do, let pass" attitude for concepts in areas outside of economics.
Laissez-faire does not mean "free rein." It is a philosophy about a "hands off" government, economically speaking. In the context of AllOfMP3, laissez-faire would in fact advocate that the US Government stop pressuring Russia, and would advocate Russia not attempt to shut AllOfMP3 down.
Let's look at your sentence again:
It doesn't give people laissez-faire to take other people's work without paying for it.Based on the above definitions, your sentence basically translates as:
It doesn't give people free market economics to take other people's work without paying for it.or
It doesn't give people leave alone to take other people's work without paying for it.or
It doesn't give people noninterference to take other people's work without paying for it.As you can see, your sentence doesn't mean anything!
And to top it all off, you completely missed my Indigo joke!
long answer is DING! DING! don't bank online. Walk, Bike, Hitchhike, or Drive TO THE BANK, and when online don't assume anything is secure, your just in for a supprise.
For most people, the likelihood of an offline attack on their bank account (loss of a debit/credit card, stealing of the information through a disgruntled or dishonest employer at a legitimate company where a card is used to purchase something, theft of mail, etc) is more likely than the loss through banking online, so the advantage of checking your accounts online more often than getting a paper statement (thereby catching fraud quicker) is outweighed by the advantage of "protecting yourself" by not banking online. It can even lead to the reduction of potential fraud elsewhere, as in the case of the elimination of paper statements and the possible loss/theft of those. So at this point I can't agree with this assessment.
Yes. Well, not the part about highlighting false stories. But if you really want to hit a big company like Sony where it hurts, to show them just how costly their ineptitudes can be, then it's not just enough to not buy their stuff. You also need to inform as many people as possible so that they too can also make the informed decision to buy or not buy as they see fit, rather than living in ignorance of Sony's poor business practices.
All that other jibber jabber about it being a "campaign of hatred" is just semantics. One person's campaign of hatred is another person's public service announcement.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, at least they didn't pull an Alienware by stating in writing that they only send systems to reviewers who give favorable reviews.
All nonsensical rantings and ravings about Batman Begins aside, you seem to have missed the point. If you read the descriptions in TFA, you would note that very rarely did the article talk about whether the movie itself was good (with the possible exception of his reference to Army of Darkness as a cult flick). The article was specifically rating the DVDs on the HD advantages they provided: better sound and video quality, extras that utilize HD-only features, etc. Things like storyline, plot, dialog, etc. were never an issue for the reviewer. So it was entirely possible for a "bad" movie to be a "good" HD movie, or vice versa, based on the reviewer's rubric.
And I really hope you were confusing Batman Begins with one of the other movies, because if not, that just kills any slashdot-based geek cred you may have.
Not to try to disagree with a Real Lawyer, but I work in a law office, and while the Court may technically have to approve the dismissal of a case, I see cases every day where the plaintiff submits a voluntary dismissal order. Sometimes it's signed by a Judge, sometimes it just gets docketed as is. I suppose you could say that the Court had to approve the dismissal, but so often those things get rubber stamped, you may as well say that Plaintiff (not the Judge) was the one doing the dismissing.
If a plaintiff sends a voluntary dismissal order to the court, likelihood is a judge is not going to get in the plaintiff's way. I suppose you could say that only a judge can end it in that the court has to approve it, but often it's just a rubber stamping, in which case the plaintiff is the de facto dismissing party.
"Dropping" a case is not a legal term. Plaintiffs can agree to dismiss a defendant, dismiss or discontinue an entire case, etc. It's their case, they instituted it, and they can end it.
I've heard that they may try to simultaneously (or at least in scarily close succession) make a spinoff movie for SG1 and make a sequel to the original movie... as if they were two completely separate things. Which, if you look at the turns that SG1 has made, isn't too far from the truth.
He did a really good job of it. A scan of his last couple months of posts show that on average he gets about 3-5 comments per post (if he's lucky). With this google search term fiasco, he's been getting dozens of comments per post, the highest so far being 158 on one post alone.
Mission accomplished??
Then there's Merriam-Webster: "(1) : incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity."
Then of course there's Princeton's WordNet: "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs."
See, words can have what some people call "multiple meanings." Your definition may have been one possible definition, but it was not the appropriate definition for the situation.
I could go on, but your arrogant ignorance is starting to bore me.
irony noun (ironies) 1 a linguistic device or form of humour that takes its effect from stating or implying the opposite of what is the case or what is intended, eg saying 'You've made a really good job of that, haven't you', when someone has done something badly. 2. incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. e.g. "How ironic that someone who posted a story about "truthiness" doesn't even know how to use the term correctly."
You gotta admit that your use of "truthiness" in the last sentence was pretty awkward and contrived. If you have to go into such a pseudo-intellectual explanation of why you used it that way, you're trying way too hard. Remember, truthiness comes from the gut, not the head!
n/t
So, would that make it "ironic" that you jumped head first into a high-and-mighty rant at the GP over his misunderstanding of the definition of "ironic," when in fact it was you who misunderstood that he was actually referring to your mis-use of "truthiness"?
Nice try though with the call to mod GP down. If only I had some mod points right now. I know for sure I'd be modding someone down. I'll leave it to you to figure out who. Are you starting to understand?
BL is a comedy. Most comedies (other than "Office Space" of course) don't even try to be like real life. Except Shirley Schmidt. She's real. I've met her. You don't want to get in her way.
But your point is well taken for shows like Justice, Law & Order, The Practice, etc.
The summary is very misleading in the way that it describes HP as paying money to make the case disappear. This wasn't a criminal case where they were buying off a judge to rule favorably. This was a civil matter. and 99 times out of 100, civil matters are about one thing: money. They can either pay money in the settlement, pay money as a result of a judgment from a trial, be dismissed through a motion, or be found not guilty from a trial. Settlement is COMMON, because it allows both sides to save costs from not having to pay for a costly trial. And trials are MUCH more costly than most of what happens pre-trial.
This isn't some back-alley dealing, it's one legitimate and often used method of resolving civil disputes quickly and cost-effectively. And on top of that, it means that HP can't appeal the decision because they agreed to it. If the case had gone to trial and verdict and resulted in a decision HP didn't like, they could have appealed and kept the case going for years without resolution, while at the same time increasing both their costs and the costs of the state in trying the case.
I wonder how many of those were Slashdot users. Shame on us! Shame!!
My calculus class always used to divide by zero... just for very large values of zero.
In related news, Yahoo also makes sweeping changes to their site design, leading to buggy site behavior, slower load times, and general unrest among Yahoo's populace.
I had to replace three items on my old Toshiba laptop over the time I had it: fan, battery, and harddrive.
The first was the fan, and I was very impressed with the way Toshiba handled it. They didn't fuss or anything, they just asked which part I needed, said how much it cost, and asked if I wanted it shipped or if I wanted to pick it up at a distribution center. That one took I believe 8 screws to replace (4 on the fan and 4 to get the cover off).
The battery was a no-brainer of course, hardly worth mentioning.
The third to go was the harddrive, after I'd had the laptop for nearly 3 years. Not only did they replace it (without having to ship them anything but the harddrive itself), they did so for FREE because they said it was still under WARRANTY. And I thought all I had was 1 year parts and labor.
All in all, a great job on Toshiba's part.
As you can see, your sentence doesn't mean anything!
Good comeback. Next time try attacking the argument rather than attacking the person. Maybe then they'll let you onto the debate team rather than cutting you in the first round of drafts.Your solid grasp of googling shows us, once again, that the internet is just no replacement for a decent education...
And to top it all off, you completely missed my Indigo joke!
That would be Inigo, and it wasn't funny. Ooh, so I guess because I got on your case for completely misusing a term just to sound so much more intelligent than everyone else, you feel like you've got laissez-faire to make fun of me for a minor misspelling. Nice. So much for sounding intelligent.
Well, let's first look at the definition:
Also, a more detailed description:
Laissez-faire does not mean "free rein." It is a philosophy about a "hands off" government, economically speaking. In the context of AllOfMP3, laissez-faire would in fact advocate that the US Government stop pressuring Russia, and would advocate Russia not attempt to shut AllOfMP3 down.
Let's look at your sentence again: It doesn't give people laissez-faire to take other people's work without paying for it.Based on the above definitions, your sentence basically translates as: It doesn't give people free market economics to take other people's work without paying for it.or It doesn't give people leave alone to take other people's work without paying for it.or It doesn't give people noninterference to take other people's work without paying for it.As you can see, your sentence doesn't mean anything!
And to top it all off, you completely missed my Indigo joke!
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
For most people, the likelihood of an offline attack on their bank account (loss of a debit/credit card, stealing of the information through a disgruntled or dishonest employer at a legitimate company where a card is used to purchase something, theft of mail, etc) is more likely than the loss through banking online, so the advantage of checking your accounts online more often than getting a paper statement (thereby catching fraud quicker) is outweighed by the advantage of "protecting yourself" by not banking online. It can even lead to the reduction of potential fraud elsewhere, as in the case of the elimination of paper statements and the possible loss/theft of those. So at this point I can't agree with this assessment.
Yes. Well, not the part about highlighting false stories. But if you really want to hit a big company like Sony where it hurts, to show them just how costly their ineptitudes can be, then it's not just enough to not buy their stuff. You also need to inform as many people as possible so that they too can also make the informed decision to buy or not buy as they see fit, rather than living in ignorance of Sony's poor business practices.
All that other jibber jabber about it being a "campaign of hatred" is just semantics. One person's campaign of hatred is another person's public service announcement.
I think you spelled something wrong there. What you meant to say is:
- Rootkit. "We need root level access to your machine to prevent privacy."
Granted, you also spelled "access" wrong, but who's quibbling??