With the accelerator stuck, shifting into neutral would cause you to possibly blow your engine or have it start on fire. Turning the car off is the best option. You don't want to red line your engine continuously.
Yes I realize you haven't, but this IS a discussion about Egypt banning pornography. I was merely offering anecdotal evidence contrary to your statement "someone is no fool for avoiding it, especially if married". And I was also pointing out I didn't see how one would be a fool for not avoiding it - if you don't have an addiction. Would you also make the same blanket claim about alcohol - someone is no fool for avoiding it? How about a food allergy - would you say the same about garlic?
Personally I think it would be foolish to avoid something that you know isn't harmful to you just because it may harm others.
Being so shallow you would find fantasy the equivalent of "I'm not enough to turn you on" seems like it would be an even bigger problem to me. Or are you one of those people who when in a relationship has to lie (to yourself and your partner) by claiming "I never even think of anyone else" becasue somehow you think having an imagination is the same as physically cheating?
I'm arguing only the fool is married when there is pornography around.
But seriously I know a married couple that enjoys pornography together and actually thinks it enhances their marriage. But I suppose their point of view will be swept under the carpet. When I was married pornography helped my marriage by giving me an alternative to cheating when the wife was out of town. I don't see what the big "evil" here is. It is like alcohol - if you are addicted don't partake. if you aren't there shouldn't be a problem. But banning it for everyone because some may have a problem with it is a terrible solution.
As someone who maintains about 70 PCs and Macs, I love the idea. Then I would only have to maintain the server and not worry about desktops - which account for 95% of problems. If a dumb terminal has a problem, replace the hardware - problem solved. Having to maintain individual operating systems and installed application bases sucks. The web is only horrible as an applications interface if horrible programmers write the applications.
I don't think the patronage model would currently work anymore than letting corporations pay little or no taxes is creating jobs, or that fur coats and diamonds "trickle down". Rich people don't give a shit about the arts anymore unless there is a profit to be made. We don't even spend as much on our educational system in this country as some much poorer countries do - and you think rich people will just give their money away to dirty artists? It was a different time back then - when people actually cared about enriching their lives with more than just monetary gain.
If you drank only soda all day every day, dehydration would be the least of your worries. I am thinking diabetes or heart conditions. But the whole soda/coffee/tea dehydrates you has been proven to be false. You still absorb a high percentage of the water in a soda, so if you drink multiple sodas a day you are still getting hydrated. The small amount that caffeine or sugar in the soda takes away from your hydration is moot if you are getting more liquids than you need anyway. Soda doesn't hydrate you AS good as water, but really nothing does. But saying it isn't as hydrating as water is not the same as saying it doesn't hydrate you at all.
I'm guessing the people who claim 720p is fine and they can't see anymore are the same as how they're claiming the iPhone and iPad "Retina" displays aren't.
If the viewing distance is the same, maybe they are claiming that. If I held a new "retina" display iPad and and older one 20 feet away from you, I am guessing you would not be able to tell the difference either. Most people do not hold their HDTVs in their hand while viewing them however, so that is a poor comparison.
Or, looking at the other side of the coin, if you never use the 3D aspect of your HDTV, you have just paid more money for something you don't need. Most response times are good already on mid-range HDTVs. Just don't buy a super cheap tv.
So we should just release all high-flight risks after their arrest and simply hope they show up for their court dates? How about if you catch them at the airport trying to fly to a country without extradition treaties? Do you still give him the benefit of the doubt when they say "I will still show up in court."? I am all for due process, but when there is a decent chance due process won't take place becasue the accused fled the country, what other options are there? If you have a better idea how to guarantee folks will show up for their day in court, I am all ears.
True, but the number of artists who have become famous that way vs. overnight sensation due to viral videos on the internet is still very much skewed towards the "traditional" way. But give it another 20 years and we will see what happens to that ratio.
I totally agree. But until recently there was no alternative to the traditionally established distribution methods. The internet changed all that. Artists no longer "need" a major label to do all the things you used to absolutely need one for. They can reach out directly to the public and contact many people for a very small price.
Being able to draw a crowd is not necessarily the same thing as marketing. Good marketing increases the chance you draw a crowd, but doesn't guarantee it. The reason for wanting to look for bands with a fan base is that they know the band isn't going to be a "flavor of the moment" flash in the pan. Those types of bands don't make the kind of money that labels are attracted to. You also have to remember that in the 80s there were no cheap "home studios" available. If you wanted to record in a "real" studio back then, you had to play the game with a a label. Not many independent bands could afford the ridiculous rates studios were charging back then.
A good band will never stop aggressively marketing itself, help from a label or no. The biggest thing you got with a major label deal is a distribution network that is already in place. Back in the day if you wanted an endcap display, or a separate free-standing cardboard display at a music store, the only way to do so was through the channels the labels had set up. What and where you saw music products back then wasn't so much due to popularity as the distribution deals made by the labels with the music stores.
You are holding up rare anomalies as examples of how people make it? For every video that goes "viral" (which still does not guarantee you make any money from it) there are hundreds of thousands that don't. How many videos are on YouTube total. And how many of them have "gone viral"? How many of them have less than 100 views? I think your definition of "possible" is grasping for straws. If you consider a.001% chance "possible" then yeah sure, it is "possible". I am not claiming it never happens, but i am stating it happens rarely, and is not a common thing. I mean honestly, what do you think Tay Zonday is doing right now? Hint: it isn't counting all the money he made from "Chocolate Rain" - and that video had 77 million views.
It is amazing how much you can make as an already established successful artist when you cut out the middleman.
If you are not already known with a good audience, you will never have the distribution, marketing, and advertising that the big boys bring to the table. But once you hit the level where everybody knows who you are, yeah you don't need the big marketing machine behind you anymore. But anyone thinking any unknown comedian/musician could just start putting out their own stuff and make a ton of money is pretty naive about the way the industry works. If it were really that easy, don't you think a lot more artists would be doing it like that already?
But the question is do you really trust this complete skank of a con man not to withdraw all his assets and go on the run? If I was in his shoes that is certainly what I would try to do. Freezing his assets guarantees he will get his day in court.
Presuming that the New Zealand government has outright stolen his assets is an awfully big assumption, and one I would wager you are incorrect on. His assets are still in their respective accounts - access to those accounts is what has been affected.
Naproxen Sodium is not to be taken daily for a long term or it can cause kidney problems. I know someone who found this out the hard way after taking it daily for over a year. Maybe she should have read the warning about consulting a doctor about long term use and the directions to stop taking it after two weeks.
Hey, I own the copyright on a blues song about a woman - but I also specified the 1,4,5 chord progression, so my copyright only covers about 99% of all blues songs.
Marijuana is about the only drug you could claim is 100% grown/manufacturered in the US. We don't grow coca leaves or poppies in the US. And since they passed laws limiting the purchase of pseudoephedrine, it is now cheaper and easier to make meth in Mexico and smuggle it in rather than make in the US anymore. Most synthetic hallucinogens and party drugs are made in Europe or Southeast Asia and brought to the US. The only real market we have for drug manufacturers anymore in the US are the legal pharmeceutical companies.
Slashdot Mirror
With the accelerator stuck, shifting into neutral would cause you to possibly blow your engine or have it start on fire. Turning the car off is the best option. You don't want to red line your engine continuously.
Not in Hawaii they don't.
Yes I realize you haven't, but this IS a discussion about Egypt banning pornography. I was merely offering anecdotal evidence contrary to your statement "someone is no fool for avoiding it, especially if married". And I was also pointing out I didn't see how one would be a fool for not avoiding it - if you don't have an addiction. Would you also make the same blanket claim about alcohol - someone is no fool for avoiding it? How about a food allergy - would you say the same about garlic?
Personally I think it would be foolish to avoid something that you know isn't harmful to you just because it may harm others.
Being so shallow you would find fantasy the equivalent of "I'm not enough to turn you on" seems like it would be an even bigger problem to me. Or are you one of those people who when in a relationship has to lie (to yourself and your partner) by claiming "I never even think of anyone else" becasue somehow you think having an imagination is the same as physically cheating?
I'm arguing only the fool is married when there is pornography around.
But seriously I know a married couple that enjoys pornography together and actually thinks it enhances their marriage. But I suppose their point of view will be swept under the carpet. When I was married pornography helped my marriage by giving me an alternative to cheating when the wife was out of town. I don't see what the big "evil" here is. It is like alcohol - if you are addicted don't partake. if you aren't there shouldn't be a problem. But banning it for everyone because some may have a problem with it is a terrible solution.
As someone who maintains about 70 PCs and Macs, I love the idea. Then I would only have to maintain the server and not worry about desktops - which account for 95% of problems. If a dumb terminal has a problem, replace the hardware - problem solved. Having to maintain individual operating systems and installed application bases sucks. The web is only horrible as an applications interface if horrible programmers write the applications.
Um, not sure if you haven't read up on history, but the "big bad government" is who created the internet.
The fact that these programs still have to constantly be patched to fix gaping security holes, is beyond absurd.
I think this is addressed by your first statement-
No software is perfect.
I don't think the patronage model would currently work anymore than letting corporations pay little or no taxes is creating jobs, or that fur coats and diamonds "trickle down". Rich people don't give a shit about the arts anymore unless there is a profit to be made. We don't even spend as much on our educational system in this country as some much poorer countries do - and you think rich people will just give their money away to dirty artists? It was a different time back then - when people actually cared about enriching their lives with more than just monetary gain.
Well, This very badly photoshopped site disagrees with you.
If you drank only soda all day every day, dehydration would be the least of your worries. I am thinking diabetes or heart conditions. But the whole soda/coffee/tea dehydrates you has been proven to be false. You still absorb a high percentage of the water in a soda, so if you drink multiple sodas a day you are still getting hydrated. The small amount that caffeine or sugar in the soda takes away from your hydration is moot if you are getting more liquids than you need anyway. Soda doesn't hydrate you AS good as water, but really nothing does. But saying it isn't as hydrating as water is not the same as saying it doesn't hydrate you at all.
I'm guessing the people who claim 720p is fine and they can't see anymore are the same as how they're claiming the iPhone and iPad "Retina" displays aren't.
If the viewing distance is the same, maybe they are claiming that. If I held a new "retina" display iPad and and older one 20 feet away from you, I am guessing you would not be able to tell the difference either. Most people do not hold their HDTVs in their hand while viewing them however, so that is a poor comparison.
Or, looking at the other side of the coin, if you never use the 3D aspect of your HDTV, you have just paid more money for something you don't need. Most response times are good already on mid-range HDTVs. Just don't buy a super cheap tv.
So we should just release all high-flight risks after their arrest and simply hope they show up for their court dates? How about if you catch them at the airport trying to fly to a country without extradition treaties? Do you still give him the benefit of the doubt when they say "I will still show up in court."? I am all for due process, but when there is a decent chance due process won't take place becasue the accused fled the country, what other options are there? If you have a better idea how to guarantee folks will show up for their day in court, I am all ears.
True, but the number of artists who have become famous that way vs. overnight sensation due to viral videos on the internet is still very much skewed towards the "traditional" way. But give it another 20 years and we will see what happens to that ratio.
I totally agree. But until recently there was no alternative to the traditionally established distribution methods. The internet changed all that. Artists no longer "need" a major label to do all the things you used to absolutely need one for. They can reach out directly to the public and contact many people for a very small price.
Being able to draw a crowd is not necessarily the same thing as marketing. Good marketing increases the chance you draw a crowd, but doesn't guarantee it. The reason for wanting to look for bands with a fan base is that they know the band isn't going to be a "flavor of the moment" flash in the pan. Those types of bands don't make the kind of money that labels are attracted to. You also have to remember that in the 80s there were no cheap "home studios" available. If you wanted to record in a "real" studio back then, you had to play the game with a a label. Not many independent bands could afford the ridiculous rates studios were charging back then.
A good band will never stop aggressively marketing itself, help from a label or no. The biggest thing you got with a major label deal is a distribution network that is already in place. Back in the day if you wanted an endcap display, or a separate free-standing cardboard display at a music store, the only way to do so was through the channels the labels had set up. What and where you saw music products back then wasn't so much due to popularity as the distribution deals made by the labels with the music stores.
You are holding up rare anomalies as examples of how people make it? For every video that goes "viral" (which still does not guarantee you make any money from it) there are hundreds of thousands that don't. How many videos are on YouTube total. And how many of them have "gone viral"? How many of them have less than 100 views? I think your definition of "possible" is grasping for straws. If you consider a .001% chance "possible" then yeah sure, it is "possible". I am not claiming it never happens, but i am stating it happens rarely, and is not a common thing. I mean honestly, what do you think Tay Zonday is doing right now? Hint: it isn't counting all the money he made from "Chocolate Rain" - and that video had 77 million views.
It is amazing how much you can make as an already established successful artist when you cut out the middleman.
If you are not already known with a good audience, you will never have the distribution, marketing, and advertising that the big boys bring to the table. But once you hit the level where everybody knows who you are, yeah you don't need the big marketing machine behind you anymore. But anyone thinking any unknown comedian/musician could just start putting out their own stuff and make a ton of money is pretty naive about the way the industry works. If it were really that easy, don't you think a lot more artists would be doing it like that already?
But the question is do you really trust this complete skank of a con man not to withdraw all his assets and go on the run? If I was in his shoes that is certainly what I would try to do. Freezing his assets guarantees he will get his day in court.
Presuming that the New Zealand government has outright stolen his assets is an awfully big assumption, and one I would wager you are incorrect on. His assets are still in their respective accounts - access to those accounts is what has been affected.
Naproxen Sodium is not to be taken daily for a long term or it can cause kidney problems. I know someone who found this out the hard way after taking it daily for over a year. Maybe she should have read the warning about consulting a doctor about long term use and the directions to stop taking it after two weeks.
Hey, I own the copyright on a blues song about a woman - but I also specified the 1,4,5 chord progression, so my copyright only covers about 99% of all blues songs.
No they are not still using blade servers, hence the reason they are selling them off as historical pieces of art basically..
Marijuana is about the only drug you could claim is 100% grown/manufacturered in the US. We don't grow coca leaves or poppies in the US. And since they passed laws limiting the purchase of pseudoephedrine, it is now cheaper and easier to make meth in Mexico and smuggle it in rather than make in the US anymore. Most synthetic hallucinogens and party drugs are made in Europe or Southeast Asia and brought to the US. The only real market we have for drug manufacturers anymore in the US are the legal pharmeceutical companies.
Kind of similar to how you think all Americans are ignorant Americans, and couldn't possibly have any idea other cultures exist?