When one makes a strong - almost commanding - declaration such as that, he should at least have the courtesy to support his statement with a fact or two.
If the name "Clarus" means nothing to you, GTFO. Don't you mean "CLARIS?" If you don't know how to spell the name, then maybe you should take your own advice, instead of trolling and making Mac users look bad.
It's a given that he has played violent video games when he was a kid, and yet he feels that if he lets his kids play them, they are somehow "not having a childhood". Perhaps, to play devil's advocate, he learned from his mistakes: sitting for hours at a time on his ass, interacting with imaginary people, is no way to live his life.
Actually, he probably didn't. He's on/.
Senator Corbert, the bill's author, is unlikely to accept these hostile changes. What's the point of the story? If the bill's author won't accept these changes, they aren't likely to be included, and are even less likely to pass, especially in a state as protective of consumer privacy rights as California.
Sorry to inform you, but blogs have been around for a little longer, since the early 1990's, at least. The earliest form of the blog was literally an online log of sites visited, occasionally annotated, but not quite as pretty in Netscape 1.0 as the contemporary embodiment. Some consider the Drudge report one of the earliest versions of the modern weblog, others point to obscure technoevangelistic sites that dotted the web in 1993 or 1994. In any case, even our current blogging systems have been around for nearly a decade: it was early summer, 1999, when Evan Williams, Paul Bausch, and Meg Houlihan launched Blogger.com.
For more info, see Mallory Jensen's history of weblogs in the September/October 2003 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review (vol. 42, issue 3).
Remember, even failed revolutions count as revolutions - don't forget about the one that some foolish southerners started (and lost) in the mid 19th century.
MIT, as the owner of the copyright, has decided to distribute the book for NO COST. This does not mean that you can redistribute it, as you do not own the copyright. If you do, you are subject to copyright infringement as your redistribution has infringed on MIT's sole right to decide what to do with the damn thing: they might want to make it "for profit" once again and remove the "free download."
Agreed - I have little time for television, and my wife never watches it anyway (she paints and sketches when she's not teaching or taking care of our daughter). If we like a television show, we buy it on DVD, but for the most part, we own movies - basically, we control what is seen in our house through our wallets. Our only television comes through rabbit ears.
Speaking of "insurgents" - When will the US Gov't cut off dealings with Halliburton - remember the Dubai port security issue a few years ago? That was ports - this is our military. I suppose with Dick and Bush, the double standard will apply.
RoughlyDrafted is an Apple propaganda blog Say, instead, a fanboy propaganda blog - it's pretty obvious he's not connected to Apple: his "news" is mostly old, recycled entries from more mainstream Apple weblogs mixed in with googled history. Besides, an Apple propaganda blog would probably look smoother and talk more frequently and more in depth about actual new items.
This could never happen. The only instances in which someone has actually sued (and won) the reseller/corporation supplying an instrument are related to assault and battery.
I've taught composition - I encourage students to use it to find topics. How many people have gone on Wikipedia and wasted hours chasing links and footnotes? Of course, I don't let them cite it, but if you can't go further in-depth than a wikipedia entry, your paper has more problems than just sources.
Exxon-Mobil IS Standard Oil: they were the two largest arms of SO when it was broken up during the 1919 antitrust case. The Rockefellers are still major shareholders (through the family trust).
Not a household name? Take a peek at the news sometime (A google news search for IBM turns up @15000 hits - posted within days, if not hours). Backend or not, mention the company name and you'll find that a ton of people will know someone who works for, or has worked for, or wants to work for IBM. They have a huge corporate presence, with divisions all over the nation. Just because a product isn't present doesn't mean that the corporate name has no cachet: employment means something too, especially to consumers who like to consume.
So if a teacher supports the notion that being able to read is a good thing, the idea is immediately suspect simply because it is in his or her best interest that children learn to read? If an oncologist makes a public statement that cancer can hurt people, the statement is suspect simply because it is in his best interest to treat cancer patients? Thanks for the insight.
Slashdot Mirror
When one makes a strong - almost commanding - declaration such as that, he should at least have the courtesy to support his statement with a fact or two.
What does equality as in ability have to do with equality as in quantity? Absolutely nothing: try again.
In the US, you get a little line on the receipt that tells you that once opened, you can only return it for an exchange of the same title.
Even better - because the shrinkwrap has been opened, cu$tomer$ can't return it! Free money!
Mod THIS parent up - sad that he's absolutely correct about the karma whore thing...
Grand juries hand down indictments. I think you're looking for juries of your peers?
I'm surprised - we made it three posts in before whining about the cartels who had NOTHING to do with this software.
Sorry to inform you, but blogs have been around for a little longer, since the early 1990's, at least. The earliest form of the blog was literally an online log of sites visited, occasionally annotated, but not quite as pretty in Netscape 1.0 as the contemporary embodiment. Some consider the Drudge report one of the earliest versions of the modern weblog, others point to obscure technoevangelistic sites that dotted the web in 1993 or 1994. In any case, even our current blogging systems have been around for nearly a decade: it was early summer, 1999, when Evan Williams, Paul Bausch, and Meg Houlihan launched Blogger.com.
For more info, see Mallory Jensen's history of weblogs in the September/October 2003 issue of the Columbia Journalism Review (vol. 42, issue 3).
Remember, even failed revolutions count as revolutions - don't forget about the one that some foolish southerners started (and lost) in the mid 19th century.
MIT, as the owner of the copyright, has decided to distribute the book for NO COST. This does not mean that you can redistribute it, as you do not own the copyright. If you do, you are subject to copyright infringement as your redistribution has infringed on MIT's sole right to decide what to do with the damn thing: they might want to make it "for profit" once again and remove the "free download."
Agreed - I have little time for television, and my wife never watches it anyway (she paints and sketches when she's not teaching or taking care of our daughter). If we like a television show, we buy it on DVD, but for the most part, we own movies - basically, we control what is seen in our house through our wallets. Our only television comes through rabbit ears.
Speaking of "insurgents" - When will the US Gov't cut off dealings with Halliburton - remember the Dubai port security issue a few years ago? That was ports - this is our military. I suppose with Dick and Bush, the double standard will apply.
This could never happen. The only instances in which someone has actually sued (and won) the reseller/corporation supplying an instrument are related to assault and battery.
I've taught composition - I encourage students to use it to find topics. How many people have gone on Wikipedia and wasted hours chasing links and footnotes? Of course, I don't let them cite it, but if you can't go further in-depth than a wikipedia entry, your paper has more problems than just sources.
how abouutt a drog thet maks slshdaughters spel gooder and youze gooderest grammer?
Exxon-Mobil IS Standard Oil: they were the two largest arms of SO when it was broken up during the 1919 antitrust case. The Rockefellers are still major shareholders (through the family trust).
Not a household name? Take a peek at the news sometime (A google news search for IBM turns up @15000 hits - posted within days, if not hours). Backend or not, mention the company name and you'll find that a ton of people will know someone who works for, or has worked for, or wants to work for IBM. They have a huge corporate presence, with divisions all over the nation. Just because a product isn't present doesn't mean that the corporate name has no cachet: employment means something too, especially to consumers who like to consume.
So if a teacher supports the notion that being able to read is a good thing, the idea is immediately suspect simply because it is in his or her best interest that children learn to read? If an oncologist makes a public statement that cancer can hurt people, the statement is suspect simply because it is in his best interest to treat cancer patients? Thanks for the insight.
What you're making is a logical fallacy: an individual's interests have no bearing on truth or falsehood. It's called "circumstantial ad hominem."
It isn't piracy: you're free to burn the music to cd. In fact, you're encouraged to make back-ups of your purchased music.