Pollution is still a harmful thing even if global warming isn't real. It's true that we don't know much about our environment, but cutting down on pollution would be a good thing no matter what.
But if anthropogenic global warming isn't real, then carbon dioxide isn't really a pollutant (it's plant food).
BTW, I almost type anthropomorphic global warming. Now that would be neat.
Happened to me, too. You can change your Pandora password 'til the cows come home, and the old phone will still be able to login!
Best part is, Pandora keeps their UDID databases inaccessible from your account, so you can't just login to Pandora and see the device(s) associated with that account. You have to email Customer Service and ask them to delete all your devices, whatever those may be. Happens on their (paid) desktop client, too. I put in a feature request to make our devices available in our account settings, but I'm not holding my breath.
For what it's worth, Pandora Support told me that if I chose "log out" on the Pandora iPhone client before getting rid of my old phone, it would have removed the UDID from their database. I half-believe this: more likely it's just marked it as "logged off."
Either way, that was what allowed me to use a new account for myself. Pandora's devs made some really stupid assumptions.
Yeah, I noticed that with Pandora after my friend sold me his old phone (he had it wiped first). I downloaded Pandora and started screwing around with his stations because I thought they were just default stations Pandora gave me. They were basing access on the UDID.
"Male peacocks are more colorful than their female counterpart."
Just as relevant, twice as informative.
From TFS:
"Microsoft may be one of the only remaining mobile operating-system providers that charges handset makers a licensing fee"
I'd say that talking about mobile phone operating system license fees is more relevant than discussions of plumage.
If they ever start putting ads into the content of the DVDs, I will not watch those shows.
American Dad has a great example of that in their episode "Black Mystery Month":
Steve: But why did we have to come to a Burger King to read the map?
Stan: Because the economics of television have changed, Steve.
*Stan lifts a cup and repositions the burger king label to be more "camera"-facing, and gets a sad look on his face*
Stan: Have it... your way!
That's why I listen to NPR--their "sponsor messages" aren't meant to convince you to buy anything, just to show that "company X is great because we support NPR." I find that a lot less offensive.
I find it intellectually offensive. It assumes I will be influenced about a product just because its sellers like one thing that I like. As much as I despise regular commercials, at least they tell me something about the product instead of the people behind the product.
TV has commercials? Huh, now that you mention that I can remember commercials, but I'd nearly forgotten because of how many years it's been since I've seen one. The only commercials I see now are the single ones that come on before the stream of The Daily Show over the internet (and I mute that one commercial). All the other TV shows I watch come from DVD or streamed on Netflix.
Radio was fine, same with broadcast TV. Both of those were essentially paid by commercials. Then they started "show notification segments" on cable channels in between movies/shows, and those quickly morphed into standard commercials that the viewers paid to watch. Then non-preview ads crept into the movie theater. And they're on DVDs now too. You'll see them soon, and they'll be as unskippable as the FBI warning.
Does this sort of thing really need to have the law getting involved? It's only a small irritant.
Is it a bit of deflection from the real issues that are going on at the moment?
When you're living in an apartment and the late night shows need to be at volume level 30 to hear properly (and never get too loud to wake the neighbors), then suddenly the commercials come on, and you have to reduce volume to 10 or just mute, it can be the difference between being a good neighbor and that ^(@*& who won't keep the noise down (which sometimes escalates into "disturbing the peace" and wasting officers' time while they explain to your neighbors that occasional, unintentional, loud noises are not against the law). Sure, it's still an irritant, but it's one that the FCC should have fixed a while back, and one that constituents have been clamoring for.
As deflections go, it's like your wife trying to get you in bed quickly so you won't notice the ding on her car. Sure, you won't be happy about the ding, but as long as she's deflecting why not acquiesce?
Okay, now you're starting to irk me because you're being deliberately stupid. What part of "by the turn of the century" do you not understand? What he believed would happen is immaterial to my original joke. It's all about the timing of when he said it would happen, and the fact that it didn't happen by that time, thereby nullifying the whole of the statement. Partialities are useless here.
I voted nay for Obama which meant I had to vote for McCain, but the only reason I voted for McCain was because I may as well abstain rather then vote for a third party.
If even 10% vote for a 3rd party, that's potentially 10% less that a winner has to claim they have a clear mandate to steamroller their agenda.
If I say "we will have flying cars by 2001" and we don't have flying cars after 2001, then I had better reverse that position. Maybe I'll make a new position: "we will have flying cars by 2020", but if I, in 2002, staunchly hold to my belief that we'll have flying cars by 2001, then I'm a loon. Ergo, the turn of the century reversed his position. If it didn't then he has issues.
It's important to remember the context. From pretty much everyones point of view, they would be going to the moon so often it wouldn't be a big deal.
Just like because I live in the U.S., visiting Plymouth Rock holds no value because I'm always on U.S. soil. Substitute any historical site. Reusing those tapes was a bonehead move.
I heard somewhere that there's a Private Investigator exemption for super-user type viewing, and that a lot of big name companies' HR departments have someone to do that for "identity verification".
I doesn't even make sense to bet against. I'm not familiar with betting, but with 100/1 odds, wouldn't the opposed better get only $1 gross on a $100 bet? I can still get better than 1% interest rate almost anywhere.
"We absolutely could see a situation when content or app providers may want to pay BT for quality of service above best efforts,"
What's that got to do with it? I could absolutely see a situation when content or app providers may want to pay Assassins to kill their competition. That shouldn't be legal either.
Slashdot Mirror
bah. "Sheeple" is an overused cliche, but I truly believe it fits for a lot of people
baaaaaaah, humbug.
PR teams inject memes
It works best when they rhyme.
The bastion of pure balance. I'm sure the truthiness meter will see no bias creep.
~
But, most surprisingly, the giant penguin's feathers were brown and gray, distinct from the black 'tuxedo'
Surprise, surprise! A fossil is rock-colored! Maybe the original bird that got replaced by the fossil material was black and white?
They're coming back, man. There's a distant planet filled with penguins and they are just waiting to come back and
and what? Are you okay? Please respond. Should I wait for the penguin on the telly?
Pollution is still a harmful thing even if global warming isn't real. It's true that we don't know much about our environment, but cutting down on pollution would be a good thing no matter what.
But if anthropogenic global warming isn't real, then carbon dioxide isn't really a pollutant (it's plant food).
BTW, I almost type anthropomorphic global warming. Now that would be neat.
Happened to me, too. You can change your Pandora password 'til the cows come home, and the old phone will still be able to login!
Best part is, Pandora keeps their UDID databases inaccessible from your account, so you can't just login to Pandora and see the device(s) associated with that account. You have to email Customer Service and ask them to delete all your devices, whatever those may be. Happens on their (paid) desktop client, too. I put in a feature request to make our devices available in our account settings, but I'm not holding my breath.
For what it's worth, Pandora Support told me that if I chose "log out" on the Pandora iPhone client before getting rid of my old phone, it would have removed the UDID from their database. I half-believe this: more likely it's just marked it as "logged off."
Either way, that was what allowed me to use a new account for myself. Pandora's devs made some really stupid assumptions.
Yeah, I noticed that with Pandora after my friend sold me his old phone (he had it wiped first). I downloaded Pandora and started screwing around with his stations because I thought they were just default stations Pandora gave me. They were basing access on the UDID.
"Male peacocks are more colorful than their female counterpart."
Just as relevant, twice as informative.
From TFS: "Microsoft may be one of the only remaining mobile operating-system providers that charges handset makers a licensing fee"
I'd say that talking about mobile phone operating system license fees is more relevant than discussions of plumage.
I bet the iOS team charges the iPhone team interdepartmentally.
If they ever start putting ads into the content of the DVDs, I will not watch those shows.
American Dad has a great example of that in their episode "Black Mystery Month":
Steve: But why did we have to come to a Burger King to read the map?
Stan: Because the economics of television have changed, Steve.
*Stan lifts a cup and repositions the burger king label to be more "camera"-facing, and gets a sad look on his face*
Stan: Have it... your way!
That's why I listen to NPR--their "sponsor messages" aren't meant to convince you to buy anything, just to show that "company X is great because we support NPR." I find that a lot less offensive.
I find it intellectually offensive. It assumes I will be influenced about a product just because its sellers like one thing that I like. As much as I despise regular commercials, at least they tell me something about the product instead of the people behind the product.
Animal Farms want to pump *clap* You Up!
TV has commercials? Huh, now that you mention that I can remember commercials, but I'd nearly forgotten because of how many years it's been since I've seen one. The only commercials I see now are the single ones that come on before the stream of The Daily Show over the internet (and I mute that one commercial). All the other TV shows I watch come from DVD or streamed on Netflix.
Radio was fine, same with broadcast TV. Both of those were essentially paid by commercials. Then they started "show notification segments" on cable channels in between movies/shows, and those quickly morphed into standard commercials that the viewers paid to watch. Then non-preview ads crept into the movie theater. And they're on DVDs now too. You'll see them soon, and they'll be as unskippable as the FBI warning.
Does this sort of thing really need to have the law getting involved? It's only a small irritant. Is it a bit of deflection from the real issues that are going on at the moment?
When you're living in an apartment and the late night shows need to be at volume level 30 to hear properly (and never get too loud to wake the neighbors), then suddenly the commercials come on, and you have to reduce volume to 10 or just mute, it can be the difference between being a good neighbor and that ^(@*& who won't keep the noise down (which sometimes escalates into "disturbing the peace" and wasting officers' time while they explain to your neighbors that occasional, unintentional, loud noises are not against the law). Sure, it's still an irritant, but it's one that the FCC should have fixed a while back, and one that constituents have been clamoring for.
As deflections go, it's like your wife trying to get you in bed quickly so you won't notice the ding on her car. Sure, you won't be happy about the ding, but as long as she's deflecting why not acquiesce?
Okay, now you're starting to irk me because you're being deliberately stupid. What part of "by the turn of the century" do you not understand? What he believed would happen is immaterial to my original joke. It's all about the timing of when he said it would happen, and the fact that it didn't happen by that time, thereby nullifying the whole of the statement. Partialities are useless here.
I voted nay for Obama which meant I had to vote for McCain, but the only reason I voted for McCain was because I may as well abstain rather then vote for a third party.
If even 10% vote for a 3rd party, that's potentially 10% less that a winner has to claim they have a clear mandate to steamroller their agenda.
If I say "we will have flying cars by 2001" and we don't have flying cars after 2001, then I had better reverse that position. Maybe I'll make a new position: "we will have flying cars by 2020", but if I, in 2002, staunchly hold to my belief that we'll have flying cars by 2001, then I'm a loon. Ergo, the turn of the century reversed his position. If it didn't then he has issues.
"The claim is a reversal for Hawking, who claimed in 1980 that there would be a unified theory by the turn of the century."
I think the turn of the century reversed his claim for him.
...after all, many more users are leaking Android app data.
They should see their primary care physician.
It's important to remember the context. From pretty much everyones point of view, they would be going to the moon so often it wouldn't be a big deal.
Just like because I live in the U.S., visiting Plymouth Rock holds no value because I'm always on U.S. soil. Substitute any historical site. Reusing those tapes was a bonehead move.
I heard somewhere that there's a Private Investigator exemption for super-user type viewing, and that a lot of big name companies' HR departments have someone to do that for "identity verification".
I doesn't even make sense to bet against. I'm not familiar with betting, but with 100/1 odds, wouldn't the opposed better get only $1 gross on a $100 bet? I can still get better than 1% interest rate almost anywhere.
"We absolutely could see a situation when content or app providers may want to pay BT for quality of service above best efforts,"
What's that got to do with it? I could absolutely see a situation when content or app providers may want to pay Assassins to kill their competition. That shouldn't be legal either.
dude it's Jack Black
Oops. Well then, I'm going to have my own movie with Jack Black, booze, and strippers... in fact, forget Jack Black.