I'll stand up and say that you're wrong - or, since you're judging art, at least in the small minority. That story you linked to praises the movie and gives several reasons why it's in Roger Ebert's list of "Great Movies". You gave no reasons why you think it's horrible. The movie has a very high 8.7 out of 10 stars at IMDB.com based on over 100,000 user ratings. It was nominated for 5 Oscars the year it came out and, although it didn't win any, it has won other awards. Perhaps being in the public domain has helped the movie - but that's not the only reason it's remembered.
That makes no sense. If he vetoed it and his veto was overridden it would still become law so that, as you say, "it COULD be hashed out in public". But you'd have sent the message that this bill sucked and was vetoed. I don't see a reason why you would sign a bill you are against. Just makes him look stupid if you ask me.
"from the only-two-of-three-wives-agree dept" is also not cool. There are some polygamists around somewhere I hear but I've never seen one and I've lived in Utah for 20 years. And Utah doesn't have a monopoly on them - they are also found in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Canada, Montana, South Dakota... Zero members of the LDS church are polygamists because it's against church doctrine and has been for over a century. Further, only 60% of Utahns are reportedly LDS of which who knows what percent are active church goers. Yeah the state legislature are a bunch of nut jobs but with the most national parks of any state (7) and the greatest snow on Earth, there's a lot to like about Utah.
Luke 4:17-20
And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.
What?!!! A Slashdot summary was wrong? A sensationalist headline was wrong? No one did any fact checking?!!!! Inconceivable!
This is why Slashdot (News for Nerds) is "news" like Fox News is "news" - it's not. There's no journalistic ethics applied. It's entertainment and maybe occasionally informational.
With a paper book, no one is going to take it from you unless you get mugged, and then, what kind of mugger takes your books? Maybe I'll start spending money on ebooks when I'm guaranteed they're really mine. But that will never happen.
but the question still remains. Does his ruling make sense?
No, the question is, is the moratorium illegal. Not, does it make sense economically, or, is it fair, or, is it logical. Those are not the questions the judge should be deciding. Judges rule on what the law is, so I ask, what law did Obama break when he initiated the moratorium?
I am sorry if I seem to misunderstand something, but... who are you?
Not sure how to answer that. I prefer my limited privacy.
And who gave you "+3, Insightful"?
No clue.
Yes. They buy a search term, to try and put a spin on the news. Of course this is irritating. And no, we're not interested in news from them as we know that they have a very large and currently exceptionally busy PR department, making news from them quite worthless.
Again, sorry if I seem paranoid or something, but... who are you? I keep finding very positive entries, protecting BP, writing positively about them. Seems a bit weird, especially seeing that they're trying to keep 3rd-person data away from this.
I'm a computer programmer, not a BP employee or apologist. I just think this whole story is upside down. I'm a skeptic by nature and although I love Slashdot I hate groupthink and a lot of Slashdot postings qualify as groupthink in my opinion. I think it's appalling what BP has done to the Gulf, but if I was a responsible company I would do just what they are doing with the Google ads.
So BP is spending their money on ads for a relevant search term and when you click on the ad you are lead to information on what they are doing with the oil spill. And we're supposed to be angry at them for doing this? Huh?
Maybe their info is bogus or they should be providing more info. Maybe they have totally botched the oil spill. But it would make more sense to me if people were outraged if they DIDN'T buy ads that lead people to information.
Slashdot Mirror
failsafe: I don't think that means what you think it means.
Obligatory Aladdin reference.
Yes, anyone here actually believed this. I guess in your hurry to post, you misread the double-negative in the summary...
turns out there is a not insignificant difference
That's why I don't not dislike double negatives.
No kidding. What is this "exercise" thingy?
I don't consume any water either - I just use it and return it to the eco system (minus my small but ever increasing weight gain).
There's no such thing as an accident
ac ci dent
Noun:
An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.
There are such things as accidents. You're just misunderstanding the definition.
Looks like justice.gov is overwhelmed (I'd say slashdotted but this goes beyond slashdot).
I'll stand up and say that you're wrong - or, since you're judging art, at least in the small minority. That story you linked to praises the movie and gives several reasons why it's in Roger Ebert's list of "Great Movies". You gave no reasons why you think it's horrible. The movie has a very high 8.7 out of 10 stars at IMDB.com based on over 100,000 user ratings. It was nominated for 5 Oscars the year it came out and, although it didn't win any, it has won other awards. Perhaps being in the public domain has helped the movie - but that's not the only reason it's remembered.
The official line in Washington D.C. is that there's a new Cold War brewing
Citation needed. Oh wait. It's in the summary. You can make up whatever bullsh#t you like. Nevermind.
Since it's not in Oregon, it'd be Self Serve.
So apparently we can just mix and match random old techniques, and call it innovation and get it patented?
Of course. That's what almost all innovation is. Didn't you see "Flash of Genius"?
Amazon will let you upload ANYTHING (pirated, ripped, bought--makes no difference) and stream it.
So they'll let me upload ANYTHING and then later download it? How dare they!!!
That makes no sense. If he vetoed it and his veto was overridden it would still become law so that, as you say, "it COULD be hashed out in public". But you'd have sent the message that this bill sucked and was vetoed. I don't see a reason why you would sign a bill you are against. Just makes him look stupid if you ask me.
Me too. Tried it in Chrome, Firefox and IE. Nothing.
"from the only-two-of-three-wives-agree dept" is also not cool. There are some polygamists around somewhere I hear but I've never seen one and I've lived in Utah for 20 years. And Utah doesn't have a monopoly on them - they are also found in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Canada, Montana, South Dakota... Zero members of the LDS church are polygamists because it's against church doctrine and has been for over a century. Further, only 60% of Utahns are reportedly LDS of which who knows what percent are active church goers. Yeah the state legislature are a bunch of nut jobs but with the most national parks of any state (7) and the greatest snow on Earth, there's a lot to like about Utah.
Luke 4:17-20 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down.
I see you've invoked the dual powers of slashdot-shame-on-you and I-dare-you-to-mod-down, a virtually undefeatable combination. Well played.
What?!!! A Slashdot summary was wrong? A sensationalist headline was wrong? No one did any fact checking?!!!! Inconceivable!
This is why Slashdot (News for Nerds) is "news" like Fox News is "news" - it's not. There's no journalistic ethics applied. It's entertainment and maybe occasionally informational.
That is, "correct your damned English."
By reading this comment you agree by contract to pay me $1,000,000.
With a paper book, no one is going to take it from you unless you get mugged, and then, what kind of mugger takes your books? Maybe I'll start spending money on ebooks when I'm guaranteed they're really mine. But that will never happen.
Insects are mostly sterilized with radiation
What could possibly go wrong?
but the question still remains. Does his ruling make sense?
No, the question is, is the moratorium illegal. Not, does it make sense economically, or, is it fair, or, is it logical. Those are not the questions the judge should be deciding. Judges rule on what the law is, so I ask, what law did Obama break when he initiated the moratorium?
I am sorry if I seem to misunderstand something, but... who are you?
Not sure how to answer that. I prefer my limited privacy.
And who gave you "+3, Insightful"?
No clue.
Yes. They buy a search term, to try and put a spin on the news. Of course this is irritating. And no, we're not interested in news from them as we know that they have a very large and currently exceptionally busy PR department, making news from them quite worthless.
Again, sorry if I seem paranoid or something, but... who are you? I keep finding very positive entries, protecting BP, writing positively about them. Seems a bit weird, especially seeing that they're trying to keep 3rd-person data away from this.
I'm a computer programmer, not a BP employee or apologist. I just think this whole story is upside down. I'm a skeptic by nature and although I love Slashdot I hate groupthink and a lot of Slashdot postings qualify as groupthink in my opinion. I think it's appalling what BP has done to the Gulf, but if I was a responsible company I would do just what they are doing with the Google ads.
So BP is spending their money on ads for a relevant search term and when you click on the ad you are lead to information on what they are doing with the oil spill. And we're supposed to be angry at them for doing this? Huh? Maybe their info is bogus or they should be providing more info. Maybe they have totally botched the oil spill. But it would make more sense to me if people were outraged if they DIDN'T buy ads that lead people to information.