I trust google with my data, but I don't trust their browser to have the configurability I desire, nor can I trust them to let me make my own changes if necessary.
So I trust them a lot more in the browser, than on the browser.
Mozilla may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, and Google may be a wolf in wolf's clothing. I like wolves just fine. But I don't want my computer to act like a wolf. It doesn't even matter which clothing it wears if I already know they're both wolves.
Which is why I'm not going to update Firefox every again; when my version has some security problem causing me to want an update, I'll select a fork. Easy, easy, easy. My computer is like a sheep, and I it's shepherd; it rests in the pastures of my choosing.
Luckily the CDC does not provide the oversight for military nuclear power reactors, so not sure why you think this is relevant. You also might want to read a source article instead of whatever headlines made into your echo chamber, because your presentation doesn't match the facts. You pasted a link, but you seem to have not read it.
"Air superiority" isn't a weasel word, it is a narrowly defined technical military term.
I'd give you a link, but I don't want to accidentally educate the aliterate. So people who actually read, go look it up because it is an important phrase.
Why would you even comment about the legal angles, when you don't even have "baby knowledge" of the subject? Bring wrong on the internet doesn't surprise me, but this is just so stupid and silly without purpose.
I was a big fan of their first big hit, Wonkette, when it was still run by Ana Marie Cox.
But it certainly wasn't journalism. The vast majority of what they did was blogs. Just look at the name, "gawker." What does that mean, literally? That's what they were. To the extent that they were talking about current events they were like an editorial page. But the editorial page isn't journalism.
What interests me about this is that their non-profit doesn't seem to be for a legit purpose; they're going to end up having to turn all the money raised over to gawker's creditors, and they'll be crying about it so hard/loud.
See! LOL the funny part is that you think that statement defends your analysis, but instead it shows how loaded with stereotypes you are, and how you can't comprehend the difference between television reports of crime and actual crime.
When you were a kid, people talked about crime less. But crime was higher.
Nobody cares what he says. What did the other executives say? That is what matters. Those are the people covering their assess with training; they're worried about being accused of having allowed it. That's the issue you're responding to.
The perp is going to get fired either way. Nobody cares what your excuse for him is. Nobody is going to ask him what his opinion is, they're only going to ask him if he's going to resign before he they can fire him, or not.
Right, that's what I meant when I said "customers like you." To you it seems like refusing to use browsers that don't respect my freedom would mean not even using the internet. Whereas, I know that to be absurd; actually I'm a software developer and would sooner write my own browser than not have access, but also there are lots and lots of browser choices already. There is no reasonable scenario where a person could be forced to use a sucky browser. It is only your perception that it is so that makes it that way for you. For me, that would always be a false choice that I would refuse to consider.
I just wish they'd do some A/B testing with it instead of throwing everything at the wall, and then saying it for years without asking if any of it stuck!
I don't think it has to do with broad appeal of the fetish, I think it has to do with attracting the eyeball to ridiculous words, same as any other clickbait, and then offering a random video. The video that is playing often has more appeal than videos not currently playing, so it works out for them.
No, dill weed, those aren't stacks of "incest porn," they're random porn that has incest-related words placed in the description by the aggregators.
I know it is really hard to read the words and look at the pictures at the same time, but if you manage it you'll see what I mean. In fact, the same video will be listed as incest, ex-gf, strangers, swingers, and 5 other things. The tags will also mostly list acts not in the video.
The videos don't match the descriptions. This is not news.
Wow, you might want to find a mirror and consider what it says about you that you review my posting history in order to attempt to blather on about how you can't comprehend what I said and feel really threatened by it.
Sorry cluestick, there is a huge conflict between those statements. How are you ever going to become fluent in English if you refuse to accept corrections? You claim there is no conflict, it just means you don't understand what you're saying. Your grammar is pretty good, but your comprehension is nonexistent.
Saying "everything went fine" implies that there is no important health or security advantage to carrying one. Maybe it translates to a different implication in your native tongue?
Slashdot Mirror
I still buy/rent DVDs for these sorts of reasons.
I trust google with my data, but I don't trust their browser to have the configurability I desire, nor can I trust them to let me make my own changes if necessary.
So I trust them a lot more in the browser, than on the browser.
Mozilla may be a wolf in sheep's clothing, and Google may be a wolf in wolf's clothing. I like wolves just fine. But I don't want my computer to act like a wolf. It doesn't even matter which clothing it wears if I already know they're both wolves.
Which is why I'm not going to update Firefox every again; when my version has some security problem causing me to want an update, I'll select a fork. Easy, easy, easy. My computer is like a sheep, and I it's shepherd; it rests in the pastures of my choosing.
switching to another comparable browser risks switching to a nonfree browser.
Horse shit. If it is Free Software it will be labeled as such. Details about that are in the license.
Free Software users don't just accidentally stumble and land locked into a proprietary product, that isn't how choice and freedom work.
You've got some derp on your chin... no, stuck your neckbeard... no, there's more...
In Soviet Mozilla, shark jumps you!
Luckily the CDC does not provide the oversight for military nuclear power reactors, so not sure why you think this is relevant. You also might want to read a source article instead of whatever headlines made into your echo chamber, because your presentation doesn't match the facts. You pasted a link, but you seem to have not read it.
"Air superiority" isn't a weasel word, it is a narrowly defined technical military term.
I'd give you a link, but I don't want to accidentally educate the aliterate. So people who actually read, go look it up because it is an important phrase.
Wow.
Uhm. The answer is "no," but just wow.
Why would you even comment about the legal angles, when you don't even have "baby knowledge" of the subject? Bring wrong on the internet doesn't surprise me, but this is just so stupid and silly without purpose.
I was a big fan of their first big hit, Wonkette, when it was still run by Ana Marie Cox.
But it certainly wasn't journalism. The vast majority of what they did was blogs. Just look at the name, "gawker." What does that mean, literally? That's what they were. To the extent that they were talking about current events they were like an editorial page. But the editorial page isn't journalism.
What interests me about this is that their non-profit doesn't seem to be for a legit purpose; they're going to end up having to turn all the money raised over to gawker's creditors, and they'll be crying about it so hard/loud.
Nope. That is what it looks like without a la carte.
A la carte means you'd be paying for individual channels, not subscriptions to "providers."
See! LOL the funny part is that you think that statement defends your analysis, but instead it shows how loaded with stereotypes you are, and how you can't comprehend the difference between television reports of crime and actual crime.
When you were a kid, people talked about crime less. But crime was higher.
Nobody cares what he says. What did the other executives say? That is what matters. Those are the people covering their assess with training; they're worried about being accused of having allowed it. That's the issue you're responding to.
The perp is going to get fired either way. Nobody cares what your excuse for him is. Nobody is going to ask him what his opinion is, they're only going to ask him if he's going to resign before he they can fire him, or not.
I really doubt you would find even one "nursing organization" who would agree with your characterization of their actions.
Right, that's what I meant when I said "customers like you." To you it seems like refusing to use browsers that don't respect my freedom would mean not even using the internet. Whereas, I know that to be absurd; actually I'm a software developer and would sooner write my own browser than not have access, but also there are lots and lots of browser choices already. There is no reasonable scenario where a person could be forced to use a sucky browser. It is only your perception that it is so that makes it that way for you. For me, that would always be a false choice that I would refuse to consider.
We covered that ground in your last message, I guess you don't even read your own words?
You're burbling, but what does that even mean? Was that an insult? I'll give you a hint: No, I don't use apple products.
I just wish they'd do some A/B testing with it instead of throwing everything at the wall, and then saying it for years without asking if any of it stuck!
I don't think it has to do with broad appeal of the fetish, I think it has to do with attracting the eyeball to ridiculous words, same as any other clickbait, and then offering a random video. The video that is playing often has more appeal than videos not currently playing, so it works out for them.
No, dill weed, those aren't stacks of "incest porn," they're random porn that has incest-related words placed in the description by the aggregators.
I know it is really hard to read the words and look at the pictures at the same time, but if you manage it you'll see what I mean. In fact, the same video will be listed as incest, ex-gf, strangers, swingers, and 5 other things. The tags will also mostly list acts not in the video.
The videos don't match the descriptions. This is not news.
Wow, you might want to find a mirror and consider what it says about you that you review my posting history in order to attempt to blather on about how you can't comprehend what I said and feel really threatened by it.
No, that is your newsletter. I stand by what I said.
In actual emergencies, you didn't need quarters you'd just dial 0 and make a "collect call" and your parents would get the charge on their phone bill.
Actually, the rarity of collect calls showed how non-emergency most of the "emergencies" that people imagine needing a cell phone for are.
No, usually it is when they get the txt from their gang telling them who to shoot.
It is the same arguments, not something unrelated. Try understanding what is being said before you decide that a particular criticism is unwarranted.
Sorry cluestick, there is a huge conflict between those statements. How are you ever going to become fluent in English if you refuse to accept corrections? You claim there is no conflict, it just means you don't understand what you're saying. Your grammar is pretty good, but your comprehension is nonexistent.
Saying "everything went fine" implies that there is no important health or security advantage to carrying one. Maybe it translates to a different implication in your native tongue?
Never once heard of anything more than a fist fight.
This is either a lie, or you've had your fingers in your ears your whole life.