Too bad some websites have noticed the NoScripters and made their website unusable once your disable JS execution.
I say to them, Thank you! I'm glad we agree that it is best if I use another site. Everybody wins!
Lets not fight about this adblock stuff. Not everybody agrees, and that is wonderful, it is a sign of Freedom. There is no need to be passive-aggressive and make the site appear to work at first, and then fail later when you get to the heart of the content. Detect what is detectable, and be honest and straightforwards; if you don't want me as a user, great! I can agree to that, no problem!
Unless I, the user, have a reason for wanting javascript I won't turn it on. And even if I do, I don't want your cross-site scripting! uMatrix prevents that. And if something really needs a third party script, I can turn on just the specific third parties that are related. For example, I might allow a few google domains if I'm intentionally loading a map, but if I'm not using the map I'm not going to turn those on. And even if I am, I certainly don't want the analytics.
It seems to be getting better, actually; 5 years ago almost every site had third party JS for important functions, now more and more sites are hosting their own scripts for core functionality.
The question was whether the backers could be held liable. If you wish to argue that the act of backing a Kickstarter campaign cannot possibly be illegal, that's a different matter entirely.
That's as much as I read, because that was not at all my claim.
My claim was that other important steps have to have happened first. You can't just do it bare, without something big happening that makes it so you can. Nothing like that has happened; no criminal conspiracy has been uncovered, just a crowdfunding effort for a purpose that would be probably be a tort by the entity receiving the money against another entity. If that is what you have, and you accuse a third party you don't have any connection to, you're going to be facing a "show cause" hearing where your fine is assessed, you're not suing that third party.
Just like, if somebody keys your car in your driveway at night, at it turns out that he works as a veterinarian, you can't sue his clients for the damages to your car.
The idea that the answer to questions about being sued is always "maybe" is false as soon as you have even one known fact about the situation. If you know nothing at all, then "maybe." But if you know what the relationship between the parties is, not everything always remains a maybe. And if you know they don't actually have a direct relationship, then you know you need a solid reason to sue them.
In this case, the problem isn't even the receipt of the money, any lawsuit would be over who gets to keep the money. If somebody tried to sue the backers, they'd get a "show cause" hearing. If they thought it was illegal to collect the money for that purpose, they'd have to sue kickstarter, not the backers. But that would be an insane claim that would also likely get to a "show cause" hearing. Their lawyers aren't going to be that horrible at their jobs; they would instead sue claiming that the money collected belongs to them! These "Gawker Foundation" people appear to be trading on the name of the company they lost control of, to try to rebuild it somehow, it might very well be that the rightful owner of Gawker owns whatever they collect. The bankruptcy process is still ongoing, why would this money raised not be part of it? It is hard to claim it is unrelated when they're even trying to use the collected money to bid on part of the bankrupt property! In the name of that property! If they raise $1m, then perhaps that is just $1m that Gawker raised, and the stuff about creating another corporation is just a sham that the Court will pierce. These are more interesting questions than, "golly, when you donate money can you be randomly sued for it, by anybody in the world?" (no)
People who believe in God but not churches or organized religions or whatever are not atheists in any sense of the word I've seen.
Atheists are usually people who left the Church for reasons. They then adopt the dogma of their new anti-church group. Everything about their views is still in reference to that Church. That is why they want, as you say, "to be left alone to not practice religion in peace." That's their claim. But in the western world, none of these people are being denied that. And yet, they are in fact outspoken.
A person who is a Theist who is not disgruntled, who simply stops believing, doesn't turn into an "atheist." They turn into an "agnostic."
Atheists are bound to their purportedly-former religion by their opposition to it. They only thing that holds them "against" it is their cognitive dissonance; they have an internal struggle, and they're trying to resolve that by explicitly rejecting one side. But if they had succeeded in mastering their own thoughts, if they had succeeded at simply not believing in God, the struggle would have instantly stopped and they would have become unconflicted agnostics.
The valid scientific conclusion is that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, and this non-answerability is the problem with the question. That is not at all the same as believing that the negative can be proven! Theists and Atheists share completely in their non-scientific insistence on claiming to have the answer to something not answerable. And it is easy to observe that the vast majority of Atheists are former Theists; and I would say, current Theists, because they still cling to the same cognitive dissonance that they learned from their religion.
Instead of assuming my words were nonsensical and replying anyways, consider parsing them until they make sense and that is the point at which you can start to even ask if you agree or not. If my words sound to you like they disagree withg everything you've known, heard about, or read about, you've either never read anything at all, or else you didn't understand me yet. Do better.
Most of the traditional stocks are companies with significant capital wealth that would limit any drop. Individually, they won't drop more than a certain percent, they won't drop to zero.
Doubtful, since most people know that the frog thing was just some bullshit some asshole made up and not a real effect.
The reality is that frogs in heated water have nowhere to escape. That's the whole story. Give them a chance to escape, and they will; they do understand the problem, and all evidence confirms that. There was never any reason given for believing the cliche; it is just a sort of IQ test; people who are credulous to the point of mental disability will believe it, and everything else they hear, and people who check for why they think it is true will quickly come up empty and see there was never any reason to believe it even presented.
Language affects software quality a lot, because ultimately software quality is determined by the user based on how well their use case is served. Understanding the use case is a very human, language-and-communication type of problem. Even poorly written software can eventually be bugfixed to quality, if the management understands the use case and continues to apply resources.
Language differences don't prevent that, but it does make understanding use cases harder, so the average maximal result will be lower quality.
The problem is that there really aren't enough programmers out there to get all the development projects done by knowledgeable programmers.
This isn't actually true, though. In the late 90s when it was really true, the market responded, pay went up, and job availability went up too. The situation now is that pay isn't going up significantly, and jobs remain "open" forever without any attempt to hire whoever the most qualified person who applied was. You might 1000 applicants, and the "job" remains "open" and the work later gets outsourced.
If there was a real shortage, hiring would instantly increase!
My favorite bug of the year was the bluetooth one that caused a bunch of idiots to whine and cry that "everybody" was remotely rooted, while in reality RHEL/Centos users were only every exposed to a DoS bug. (box would crash instead of being exploited because RH turned on the bt memory protections already available in the kernel)
If you can't tell what censorship is, then it should be no surprise at all that some of things you falsely regard as "censorship" do not affect people in the ways that real censorship is believed to. Duh.
For example, if a person thought that removing wrong answers from math tables was censorship, and they started talking about the effects of removing those wrong answers, they might be very surprised to learn that nobody else can perceive anything but positive results from the change! Even though all the same people agree that censorship includes negative affects.
It isn't really that surprising. For readers, anyways; you're aliterate though, so your disability prevents you from resolving the conflict.
This is the way Congress works, if the anti-abortion people get uppity and start calling in to AM talk radio, their congresscritter will hear it and oppose whatever it is. Using the wrong words in a budget proposal is exactly what will cause low-information voters to understand if they should be upset or not. They don't have a deeper understanding to lean on; which words are used and how emotive they are is very important.
I dare you to really do it, take that civics course you read about and find out what happens if you try to sue somebody you don't have a relationship with, over the theory that they're part of a criminal enterprise, when no crime has been reported and you don't have any evidence of one. Will courts let you come in and argue that? Or do you get fined for trying? The fact is, you don't have a relationship with the people donating the money, you'd have to sue kickstarter and then ask the court's permission to add the people donating the money. And the answer would be no. If you just put their names on as plaintiffs, knowing that you have no relationship with them, all you're getting is fines. You're not getting to be a plaintiff standing across from them; you'll be a plaintiff getting smacked down by "John Doe" because you failed to sue anybody for anything.
No, things that are not news are not part of news aggregation will not be "collateral damage" under these changes. Is that actually hard? Are you sure that you're not naive? I mean, imagine how embarrassingly credulous you would have to be for it to be all that, with no contribution from naivete! You're not doing yourself any favors with that argument.
And it make it funnier, now we have the rest of what would have been the original story if they had checked it before reporting, and there was no word ban, it was actually a meeting about how to write budget proposals using Republican talking points for the nefarious purpose of funding the CDC priorities while the Republicans control government. And slashdot is fighting over "something something fetus corporation something something sciencosity."
If you look at how little money the flat earthers had to invest in advertising on his rocket to get him to totally adopt all their talking points, it is just a slam dunk, he'd take the job, and he'd knock it out of the park.
If they burned it out she'd probably get a new car from the insurance, but with it only having been used she only gets a tiny bit, but it actually had a lot of heavy use put on it.
Also, sometimes cars are stolen and driven around a few weeks, and then sold for parts. What doesn't have value might get burned. Or if they don't have a way to sell the parts, and just wanted to drive it around, they might burn it to destroy evidence.
No, man, we're not on wikipedia, and claiming that personal observations and opinions require citation is idiotic; the citation would point to the thing you replied to, it was the primary document! Fuck an A, man. Fuck an A.
Slashdot Mirror
Once you've fed "Paradise (1982)" into the AI, all arid scenes will trigger that response. It doesn't matter the age. Same as humans.
Too bad some websites have noticed the NoScripters and made their website unusable once your disable JS execution.
I say to them, Thank you! I'm glad we agree that it is best if I use another site. Everybody wins!
Lets not fight about this adblock stuff. Not everybody agrees, and that is wonderful, it is a sign of Freedom. There is no need to be passive-aggressive and make the site appear to work at first, and then fail later when you get to the heart of the content. Detect what is detectable, and be honest and straightforwards; if you don't want me as a user, great! I can agree to that, no problem!
That's why I use both noscript and also uMatrix!
Unless I, the user, have a reason for wanting javascript I won't turn it on . And even if I do, I don't want your cross-site scripting! uMatrix prevents that. And if something really needs a third party script, I can turn on just the specific third parties that are related. For example, I might allow a few google domains if I'm intentionally loading a map, but if I'm not using the map I'm not going to turn those on. And even if I am, I certainly don't want the analytics.
It seems to be getting better, actually; 5 years ago almost every site had third party JS for important functions, now more and more sites are hosting their own scripts for core functionality.
The question was whether the backers could be held liable. If you wish to argue that the act of backing a Kickstarter campaign cannot possibly be illegal, that's a different matter entirely.
That's as much as I read, because that was not at all my claim.
My claim was that other important steps have to have happened first. You can't just do it bare, without something big happening that makes it so you can. Nothing like that has happened; no criminal conspiracy has been uncovered, just a crowdfunding effort for a purpose that would be probably be a tort by the entity receiving the money against another entity. If that is what you have, and you accuse a third party you don't have any connection to, you're going to be facing a "show cause" hearing where your fine is assessed, you're not suing that third party.
Just like, if somebody keys your car in your driveway at night, at it turns out that he works as a veterinarian, you can't sue his clients for the damages to your car.
The idea that the answer to questions about being sued is always "maybe" is false as soon as you have even one known fact about the situation. If you know nothing at all, then "maybe." But if you know what the relationship between the parties is, not everything always remains a maybe. And if you know they don't actually have a direct relationship, then you know you need a solid reason to sue them.
In this case, the problem isn't even the receipt of the money, any lawsuit would be over who gets to keep the money. If somebody tried to sue the backers, they'd get a "show cause" hearing. If they thought it was illegal to collect the money for that purpose, they'd have to sue kickstarter, not the backers. But that would be an insane claim that would also likely get to a "show cause" hearing. Their lawyers aren't going to be that horrible at their jobs; they would instead sue claiming that the money collected belongs to them! These "Gawker Foundation" people appear to be trading on the name of the company they lost control of, to try to rebuild it somehow, it might very well be that the rightful owner of Gawker owns whatever they collect. The bankruptcy process is still ongoing, why would this money raised not be part of it? It is hard to claim it is unrelated when they're even trying to use the collected money to bid on part of the bankrupt property! In the name of that property! If they raise $1m, then perhaps that is just $1m that Gawker raised, and the stuff about creating another corporation is just a sham that the Court will pierce. These are more interesting questions than, "golly, when you donate money can you be randomly sued for it, by anybody in the world?" (no)
You didn't understand what I said.
People who believe in God but not churches or organized religions or whatever are not atheists in any sense of the word I've seen.
Atheists are usually people who left the Church for reasons. They then adopt the dogma of their new anti-church group. Everything about their views is still in reference to that Church. That is why they want, as you say, "to be left alone to not practice religion in peace." That's their claim. But in the western world, none of these people are being denied that. And yet, they are in fact outspoken.
A person who is a Theist who is not disgruntled, who simply stops believing, doesn't turn into an "atheist." They turn into an "agnostic."
Atheists are bound to their purportedly-former religion by their opposition to it. They only thing that holds them "against" it is their cognitive dissonance; they have an internal struggle, and they're trying to resolve that by explicitly rejecting one side. But if they had succeeded in mastering their own thoughts, if they had succeeded at simply not believing in God, the struggle would have instantly stopped and they would have become unconflicted agnostics.
The valid scientific conclusion is that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven, and this non-answerability is the problem with the question. That is not at all the same as believing that the negative can be proven! Theists and Atheists share completely in their non-scientific insistence on claiming to have the answer to something not answerable. And it is easy to observe that the vast majority of Atheists are former Theists; and I would say, current Theists, because they still cling to the same cognitive dissonance that they learned from their religion.
Instead of assuming my words were nonsensical and replying anyways, consider parsing them until they make sense and that is the point at which you can start to even ask if you agree or not. If my words sound to you like they disagree withg everything you've known, heard about, or read about, you've either never read anything at all, or else you didn't understand me yet. Do better.
Most of the traditional stocks are companies with significant capital wealth that would limit any drop. Individually, they won't drop more than a certain percent, they won't drop to zero.
Failed fiat currencies can easily drop to zero.
Doubtful, since most people know that the frog thing was just some bullshit some asshole made up and not a real effect.
The reality is that frogs in heated water have nowhere to escape. That's the whole story. Give them a chance to escape, and they will; they do understand the problem, and all evidence confirms that. There was never any reason given for believing the cliche; it is just a sort of IQ test; people who are credulous to the point of mental disability will believe it, and everything else they hear, and people who check for why they think it is true will quickly come up empty and see there was never any reason to believe it even presented.
explained by corporate greed.
There is no such thing as corporate greed; all greed is personal when you look under the hood.
Language affects software quality a lot, because ultimately software quality is determined by the user based on how well their use case is served. Understanding the use case is a very human, language-and-communication type of problem. Even poorly written software can eventually be bugfixed to quality, if the management understands the use case and continues to apply resources.
Language differences don't prevent that, but it does make understanding use cases harder, so the average maximal result will be lower quality.
The problem is that there really aren't enough programmers out there to get all the development projects done by knowledgeable programmers.
This isn't actually true, though. In the late 90s when it was really true, the market responded, pay went up, and job availability went up too. The situation now is that pay isn't going up significantly, and jobs remain "open" forever without any attempt to hire whoever the most qualified person who applied was. You might 1000 applicants, and the "job" remains "open" and the work later gets outsourced.
If there was a real shortage, hiring would instantly increase!
My favorite bug of the year was the bluetooth one that caused a bunch of idiots to whine and cry that "everybody" was remotely rooted, while in reality RHEL/Centos users were only every exposed to a DoS bug. (box would crash instead of being exploited because RH turned on the bt memory protections already available in the kernel)
If you can't tell what censorship is, then it should be no surprise at all that some of things you falsely regard as "censorship" do not affect people in the ways that real censorship is believed to. Duh.
For example, if a person thought that removing wrong answers from math tables was censorship, and they started talking about the effects of removing those wrong answers, they might be very surprised to learn that nobody else can perceive anything but positive results from the change! Even though all the same people agree that censorship includes negative affects.
It isn't really that surprising. For readers, anyways; you're aliterate though, so your disability prevents you from resolving the conflict.
This is the way Congress works, if the anti-abortion people get uppity and start calling in to AM talk radio, their congresscritter will hear it and oppose whatever it is. Using the wrong words in a budget proposal is exactly what will cause low-information voters to understand if they should be upset or not. They don't have a deeper understanding to lean on; which words are used and how emotive they are is very important.
No, no, and NO, what part of "writing budget proposals" has to do with describing when people should get a blood transfusion? Spoiler: None
I dare you to really do it, take that civics course you read about and find out what happens if you try to sue somebody you don't have a relationship with, over the theory that they're part of a criminal enterprise, when no crime has been reported and you don't have any evidence of one. Will courts let you come in and argue that? Or do you get fined for trying? The fact is, you don't have a relationship with the people donating the money, you'd have to sue kickstarter and then ask the court's permission to add the people donating the money. And the answer would be no. If you just put their names on as plaintiffs, knowing that you have no relationship with them, all you're getting is fines. You're not getting to be a plaintiff standing across from them; you'll be a plaintiff getting smacked down by "John Doe" because you failed to sue anybody for anything.
"legal theories haven't been tested" is code for "a bunch of bullshit that they wouldn't even let into the courtroom."
No, things that are not news are not part of news aggregation will not be "collateral damage" under these changes. Is that actually hard? Are you sure that you're not naive? I mean, imagine how embarrassingly credulous you would have to be for it to be all that, with no contribution from naivete! You're not doing yourself any favors with that argument.
And it make it funnier, now we have the rest of what would have been the original story if they had checked it before reporting, and there was no word ban, it was actually a meeting about how to write budget proposals using Republican talking points for the nefarious purpose of funding the CDC priorities while the Republicans control government. And slashdot is fighting over "something something fetus corporation something something sciencosity."
Telescopes. We can all share in this.
Yes! Our very own Baghdad Bob!
If you look at how little money the flat earthers had to invest in advertising on his rocket to get him to totally adopt all their talking points, it is just a slam dunk, he'd take the job, and he'd knock it out of the park.
Poor people take the bus. Or walk.
If they burned it out she'd probably get a new car from the insurance, but with it only having been used she only gets a tiny bit, but it actually had a lot of heavy use put on it.
Also, sometimes cars are stolen and driven around a few weeks, and then sold for parts. What doesn't have value might get burned. Or if they don't have a way to sell the parts, and just wanted to drive it around, they might burn it to destroy evidence.
Golly, what does that make you?
Banning "certain" words, or banning the words you were said are banned?
Do words matter when wringing our hands over words? Or is it about something else?
[Citation needed]
No, man, we're not on wikipedia, and claiming that personal observations and opinions require citation is idiotic; the citation would point to the thing you replied to, it was the primary document!
Fuck an A, man. Fuck an A.