Problem for cats is they are better at climbing up than down and can easily get themselves in a predicament, unlike squirrels, they can't actually grip the tree while upside down. I have seen a cat climb up things, or use their claws to hang on things, but, never climb down, they jump down....and if they can't safely jump to a branch that gets them close enough to the ground, I could see them getting stuck.
I say, "I could see" because I have never seen a cat actually get stuck in a tree. They seem to be smart enough to not climb trees very often. A quick google search indicates that this, appears to be a real problem that people have run into but.... its obviously not so common that everyone knows what to do from the panicked "OMG My cat went missing for 2 days and I found him up in a tree, what do I do now" questions out there.
I don't see how that is relevant. We are not talking about punishing the person who said it, we are talking about punishing the website which allowed public comment. I don't see where its the responsibility of anyone but the courts to enforce their laws.
Doesn't seem very new, most phones have pictures they took already on them, those that don't, its not terribly hard to make them snap photos usually. In fact, other malware apps have been developed to do exactly that:
and entertainment, I know I wont live to see it, but I have faith the Darwin Awards will long survive me, and be there to bring future people's the stories of idiots managing to remove themselves from the gene pool in hare brained schemes to get at those Saturn diamonds.
At least this should help fund space programs and work on asteroid capture. A bit sad that it will be used to adjust Saturn's orbit into the Sun but hey...progress right?
However in the absence of a cogent argument, citations will do for making the point. Especially since holding someone to such a high standard as being able to summon such an argument may be unfairly hamstringing him.
Its more of a jab than a troll. I am perfectly fine with no citations however, those are some pretty extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which in this case, should at LEAST be a citation of some sort.
I mean seriously "Wikileaks uses terrorist tactics"? I am a pretty staunch supporter, but if that were true, I would need to seriously rethink my feelings on them. Everything I know about them indicates this is false for any reasonable definition of "wikileaks" or "terrorist tactics".
So yes, if he or anyone else, wants to be taken seriously on a statement like that, a citation should be included. If its true then either there is a citation out there, or the poster has inside information which seriously needs to be published ASAP. Either way, without that, its just an unfounded and nonsensical claim.
No, that was only one option presented, they could conduct their questioning (not trial, or anything else) on neutral ground. Or does respecting the principle of legality extend to countries which you are not in and mean you must expose yourself to their legal system if they make an accusation, even if you are not within their country?
Funny thing is, when i saw this my first thought was "C720? Why would you pick a model designation that invokes numbers associated with crappy video resolutions?
Then I saw it..... "...by-768 resolution" rotfl so that is why they have no worries. Let me know when the C1200 comes out.
Citation needed. What have the blown up? How many people have they taken hostage and/or beheaded? Or do you just mean they keep secrets? In which case every teenager is a terrorist.
> act like they are above any law
Citation needed. Above any law? Would that be when he (not wikileaks the org) offered to meet with prosecutors, just not in their custody on their terms....for mere "questioning"? Would that be when he asked for legal assylum from another country over concerns that the prosecution was a thinly veiled attempt to extradite him for other reasons?
> That's terrorism
who is being terrorized exactly? War criminals? Banksters? Politicians? People with dirty secrets hiding evidence of their own crimes?
I have seen a number of wikileaks, going back before the government leaks, back when it was all banks and companies and their dirty dealings. I have yet to see anything from them I would call terrorism.
> And that's just the screws for the toilet paper holder in the Pentagon. You don't wanna know the kind > of process screws destined for fighter jets are subjected to.
Which of course brings up the old joke: Q: "What do hookers and government contracts have in common?" A: "$100 per screw"
Their distortions continue in part because no matter how many times President Obama, NSA Director Keith Alexander, Clapper and others egregiously mislead the public in their statements about surveillance, news organizations treat them as honest men and report on subsequent statements as if they're presumptively true.
Who then has watched the news media just lap up every word the ONDCP puts out as if the drug czar was reading the word of god off golden tablets for them; knows this is nothing new, but is a huge problem.
These people get way more credibility than they rightly deserve.
> Yes, there are hate crimes... but usually someone caught doing a "fag bash" will get a 10+ year > sentence just due to the pressure put on the judge and DA by the press and other groups.
But of course, part of that is because violent crime isn't generally all that punishable itself without "hate crimes". We had a prosecutor arguing to extend hate crimes legislation to homeless people.
Why? Because a homeless man was beat within an inch of his life by two guys for kicks, and because there was nothing stolen, no home to invade, and no defined hate crime, they were out in a couple of months...for coming just short of murder.
Seemed to me at the time the problem was not that homeless people need a special designation but that violent crime is poorly differentiated and there are gaping holes in the law that they are now trying to fix....with duct tape.
Excuse me, but we have a nurse on the line who has a ward full of patients who have been on respirators for several weeks who would beg to differ. Given that 50% of all healthcare spending is in the last 5 years of life, I think the numbers would disagree on the "sudden" thing.
While true, I am not sure how that is relevant to the discussion of whether Guy B and his stance is acting "entitled". I have certainly seen many "Guy A"s and their apologists make this argument and, as stated, I find this argument has it exactly backwards.
Or to change the phrasing around and say it another way, and really get to the point: It isn't about Guy B being entitled to Guy As content, Guy A is offering it up for him. Guy B is however entirely entitled to display that content for himself in whatever manner he chooses...which really is, him using his web client in exactly the manner which was always intended.
If that wasn't the case, then why wasn't their any outrage about lynx. Lynx doesn't show ads either.
I see your problem. You are using a bad model to understand these interactions. One does not, usually, put ads on a website, one puts references in a website to other sites which serve ads. In the default configuration of most web browsers a browser does, connect to such sites and download their content...right along with the original site, and runs any and all scripts handed to it from all sites.
This is a default behaviour, and one Guy A has now based his attempt to turn a profit on.
Guy A is entitled when he starts bitching that people want to browse the web with nonstandard configurations that don't do what he expects and assumed all web browsers would do. It isn't Guy Bs fault that Guy A based his business model on unwarranted assumptions about Guy B's browser.
So yes, when Guy A complains about it, he is acting pretty entitled.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting that it includes unix based systems but isn't giving mkfs a block device. Even the honor system trojan is buggy.
Problem for cats is they are better at climbing up than down and can easily get themselves in a predicament, unlike squirrels, they can't actually grip the tree while upside down. I have seen a cat climb up things, or use their claws to hang on things, but, never climb down, they jump down....and if they can't safely jump to a branch that gets them close enough to the ground, I could see them getting stuck.
I say, "I could see" because I have never seen a cat actually get stuck in a tree. They seem to be smart enough to not climb trees very often. A quick google search indicates that this, appears to be a real problem that people have run into but.... its obviously not so common that everyone knows what to do from the panicked "OMG My cat went missing for 2 days and I found him up in a tree, what do I do now" questions out there.
http://www.ask.com/answers/19238201/ja-question?q=&o=0&l=dir&jss=0
and of course:
http://news.msn.com/us/cop-gets-stuck-in-tree-trying-to-rescue-cat-stuck-in-tree
I don't see how that is relevant. We are not talking about punishing the person who said it, we are talking about punishing the website which allowed public comment. I don't see where its the responsibility of anyone but the courts to enforce their laws.
> Uttering a false statement.
Hey man, they were just taking after the example set by our political leaders!
Because normally by the time you are injecting code into a human, you already got what you wanted. What were we talking about again?
> This is actually something *very* new.
Is it? How long has your phone had a camera?
2008: http://gizmodo.com/5092582/digital-photos-act-as-unique-fingerprints-in-finding-criminals-with-digital-cameras
2006: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/04/digital_cameras.html
Doesn't seem very new, most phones have pictures they took already on them, those that don't, its not terribly hard to make them snap photos usually. In fact, other malware apps have been developed to do exactly that:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2211108/Could-phones-camera-secretly-taking-pictures-right-Hackers-use-lens-steal-private-data--build-3D-model-home.html
and entertainment, I know I wont live to see it, but I have faith the Darwin Awards will long survive me, and be there to bring future people's the stories of idiots managing to remove themselves from the gene pool in hare brained schemes to get at those Saturn diamonds.
Given that their "industrial use" is to be traded for goods and services, they seem to be valued quite exactly according to their industrial use.
At least this should help fund space programs and work on asteroid capture. A bit sad that it will be used to adjust Saturn's orbit into the Sun but hey...progress right?
Yup, and at this rate the issues should be totally settled and we can stop, in another decade or two....
Crab Grass.
However in the absence of a cogent argument, citations will do for making the point. Especially since holding someone to such a high standard as being able to summon such an argument may be unfairly hamstringing him.
Its more of a jab than a troll. I am perfectly fine with no citations however, those are some pretty extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which in this case, should at LEAST be a citation of some sort.
I mean seriously "Wikileaks uses terrorist tactics"? I am a pretty staunch supporter, but if that were true, I would need to seriously rethink my feelings on them. Everything I know about them indicates this is false for any reasonable definition of "wikileaks" or "terrorist tactics".
So yes, if he or anyone else, wants to be taken seriously on a statement like that, a citation should be included. If its true then either there is a citation out there, or the poster has inside information which seriously needs to be published ASAP. Either way, without that, its just an unfounded and nonsensical claim.
No, that was only one option presented, they could conduct their questioning (not trial, or anything else) on neutral ground. Or does respecting the principle of legality extend to countries which you are not in and mean you must expose yourself to their legal system if they make an accusation, even if you are not within their country?
Funny thing is, when i saw this my first thought was "C720? Why would you pick a model designation that invokes numbers associated with crappy video resolutions?
Then I saw it..... "...by-768 resolution" rotfl so that is why they have no worries. Let me know when the C1200 comes out.
> These guys employ terrorist tactics,
Citation needed. What have the blown up? How many people have they taken hostage and/or beheaded? Or do you just mean they keep secrets? In which case every teenager is a terrorist.
> act like they are above any law
Citation needed. Above any law? Would that be when he (not wikileaks the org) offered to meet with prosecutors, just not in their custody on their terms....for mere "questioning"? Would that be when he asked for legal assylum from another country over concerns that the prosecution was a thinly veiled attempt to extradite him for other reasons?
> That's terrorism
who is being terrorized exactly? War criminals? Banksters? Politicians? People with dirty secrets hiding evidence of their own crimes?
I have seen a number of wikileaks, going back before the government leaks, back when it was all banks and companies and their dirty dealings. I have yet to see anything from them I would call terrorism.
I was going to say criminals but now its partially redundant.
> And that's just the screws for the toilet paper holder in the Pentagon. You don't wanna know the kind
> of process screws destined for fighter jets are subjected to.
Which of course brings up the old joke:
Q: "What do hookers and government contracts have in common?"
A: "$100 per screw"
Exactly, anyone familiar with this: http://www.mpp.org/our-work/campaigns/drug-czar/gao-rejects-us-rep-pauls.html
Who then has watched the news media just lap up every word the ONDCP puts out as if the drug czar was reading the word of god off golden tablets for them; knows this is nothing new, but is a huge problem.
These people get way more credibility than they rightly deserve.
> Yes, there are hate crimes... but usually someone caught doing a "fag bash" will get a 10+ year
> sentence just due to the pressure put on the judge and DA by the press and other groups.
But of course, part of that is because violent crime isn't generally all that punishable itself without "hate crimes". We had a prosecutor arguing to extend hate crimes legislation to homeless people.
Why? Because a homeless man was beat within an inch of his life by two guys for kicks, and because there was nothing stolen, no home to invade, and no defined hate crime, they were out in a couple of months...for coming just short of murder.
Seemed to me at the time the problem was not that homeless people need a special designation but that violent crime is poorly differentiated and there are gaping holes in the law that they are now trying to fix....with duct tape.
Excuse me, but we have a nurse on the line who has a ward full of patients who have been on respirators for several weeks who would beg to differ. Given that 50% of all healthcare spending is in the last 5 years of life, I think the numbers would disagree on the "sudden" thing.
So airplanes are like a bureaucrat's version of Schrodinger's cat box?
Don't sully this with your.... facts.
While true, I am not sure how that is relevant to the discussion of whether Guy B and his stance is acting "entitled". I have certainly seen many "Guy A"s and their apologists make this argument and, as stated, I find this argument has it exactly backwards.
Or to change the phrasing around and say it another way, and really get to the point: It isn't about Guy B being entitled to Guy As content, Guy A is offering it up for him. Guy B is however entirely entitled to display that content for himself in whatever manner he chooses...which really is, him using his web client in exactly the manner which was always intended.
If that wasn't the case, then why wasn't their any outrage about lynx. Lynx doesn't show ads either.
I see your problem. You are using a bad model to understand these interactions. One does not, usually, put ads on a website, one puts references in a website to other sites which serve ads. In the default configuration of most web browsers a browser does, connect to such sites and download their content...right along with the original site, and runs any and all scripts handed to it from all sites.
This is a default behaviour, and one Guy A has now based his attempt to turn a profit on.
Guy A is entitled when he starts bitching that people want to browse the web with nonstandard configurations that don't do what he expects and assumed all web browsers would do. It isn't Guy Bs fault that Guy A based his business model on unwarranted assumptions about Guy B's browser.
So yes, when Guy A complains about it, he is acting pretty entitled.