I wish. They're mostly for *crappy* trucks and *crappy* beer. If they were ads for quality products I might seriously consider purchasing it would be far less annoying.
They are also required to take all reasonable legal action to protect their trademark, and failure to do so can be used against them in the future. They may not care if Notch names his game "Scrolls", and may not even believe that it would meaningfully weaken their brand, but if they fail to take any action a future game could do something with far more potential to cause harm and use this example to defend themselves.
Trademarks work quite differently from copyrights, that is one of the many ways.
It was delivered to a person other than the recipient. That means it was incorrectly delivered. Whether it was incorrectly delivered because the person who addressed it made a mistake or because the person who delivered it made a mistake is immaterial to the fact that it was not delivered to the right person.
Furthermore, the rules in question belong to a legal system which is explicitly designed to handle such questions and come to meaningful answers based on the details of precisely what happened. You may believe that opening mail addressed to a person who shares a name with your next door neighbor at your address is within your rights, but if a judge and/or jury do not agree with your reading of the law that will trump any and all nitpicking and semantics.
Oddly enough, I've flown a couple of times since they started ramping up the theatrics, internationally even. I also have many friends and family members who have done the same. Neither myself nor anyone that I personally know has had any particular problems getting through airport security, nor has anyone been groped or raped by the TSA. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that if it is so common as everyone claims I must be a massively improbable outlier.
So no, I can't agree that it is all-too-plausible. I can agree that it might have happened, and I can agree that if it did it is terrible and the parties responsible should be held accountable, but I can't agree that this is something that happens to everyone.
You mean the services and infrastructure that were not designed to handle hurricanes or earthquakes because they exist in locations where those events happen only once every few decades and spending time and money preparing for them is essentially wasted effort? I doubt anything will be revisited, because there is no reason to revisit much of anything.
Keep in mind that those 50 fatalities are spread across a fairly large geographic area which just happens to be the most densely populated part of the country. In the grand scheme of things, that is very little.
I actually wonder if Irene might have had a negative death toll, disrupting enough normal travel patterns to prevent more "normal" accidental deaths than it caused.
I seem to recall that at least one of our military adventures from the past 20 years wound up being rated as safer than staying on base at home for almost exactly that reason: soldiers on mission and keeping sharp to avoid getting shot won't party and drive their cars into utility poles at 3am or get t-boned trying to race a red light at rush hour.
As a native of New England, I'm a little bit embarrassed by how my co-inhabitants handled Irene. We get major storms periodically; they cause flooding, knock out power and occasionally destroy bridges, but it's nothing new or surprising. I went to a Radio Shack to buy a wireless adapter and they had signs posted informing customers they had sold out of D and C cell batteries and, get this, crank radios. This is not an area where such a thing is even remotely necessary, most people in the city can see a dozen of their neighbors simply by looking out the window, there are plenty of roads to provide alternate routes to virtually anywhere, and there are no substantial forests, wetlands, or other natural barriers to making a worst-case travel by foot to pretty much anywhere.
The earthquake I'll give them, because that's something we just don't have and being surprised by the ground shaking when that is not something you've experienced before is pretty fair. By comparison, I doubt many Californians from the fault-line area would respond well to a Nor'easter blowing through and dropping a foot of snow and freezing rain on them, so I think we're allowed to be a bit confused by an earthquake.
Of course you can, but stopping it and getting out *without dying or destroying the vehicle* just takes a bit more time. Besides, just because you could stop and get out in the middle of the highway doesn't mean doing so is worthwhile or entirely safe; you'd still be too far away from anything, and being within spitting distance of large metal objects traveling at high speed and often controlled by individuals who probably have no business operating such a device might be less dangerous thanj a free fall from several thousand feet, but it is certainly less fun.
I'm pretty sure they did. Mostly in the comments section for the story where he announced his resignation. It seemed appropriate in that time and place. Less so in a completely unrelated story about shitty telcos being shitty.
Some people prefer to play games on dedicated game machines hooked up to much larger screens with more spacious seating arrangements. It's relatively easy to hook a computer to a TV, but if you already have a PS3 hooked up to it, it would be much easier to just use that instead.
I think a better question is why you think having *more* options, even if you ultimately choose the one you already use, is ever a bad thing.
As someone who fails to meet even that definition of "religious" I concur with that opinion. Some atheists take their religious convictions just as seriously as the devoutly religious, they merely pretend not to.
I have friends who are bald and non-drinkers, but have had success with online dating (I am neither, and haven't done online dating, so I have no direct experience). None of them define themselves as either of those things, nor feel any particular shame about them.
To address each separately: baldness is easier if you have a sense of humor about it. That doesn't mean you need to crack jokes about it, or even bring it up, just that you can't let it bother you or get neurotic about it. You might also consider using a profile picture which de-emphasizes that feature without hiding it: angle, lighting, context and many other factors can play a part in this, just sit down and looking through pictures of yourself until you find one where your baldness isn't what grabs attention. Plus, let's be honest, do you really *want* a relationship with a woman who is so shallow she can't look past your hairline?
As for being a non-drinker, the question that really needs to be answered is "why"? I don't really care what your reason is, but you should pin it down so you can best address it in your profile. Avoid any really negative stories about why you don't drink, such as past alcoholism or family tragedies (I don't know you, and I have no idea if anything like this is an issue... I mention it only because it is a possibility) because that would be kind of a downer, and a dating profile should really be more upbeat. If you don't drink because of strong moral or philosophical convictions, you probably should *briefly* mention them, because a compatible match may need to share them or at the very least respect them; doing so also demonstrates that you are a real person, with real thoughts, real feelings, real emotions and a real personality, which is a nice side-benefit... just be mindful that you don't cross into moralizing on it, because even if you do believe that alcohol is a terrible evil and anyone who touches it should burn, that's something to discuss further down the road. If you don't drink because you simply don't enjoy it, or have specific health concerns (such as diabetes or liver disease), I'd actually leave that out altogether... say something non-committal about it only if you can't get away with saying nothing about it, and leave that issue to be dealt with later.
The most important part is to put a positive spin on it all. You don't need to bring up detriments or drawbacks, and you should really focus on your qualities rather than your flaws. Especially where the same aspect might be viewed as both. Nobody out there is perfect, so convincing yourself that anything short of perfect just won't work only serves to put you at a disadvantage against the imperfect people who don't share the misconception.
i think the point you're ignoring is that, in their future, personal ownership of a particular device would not be taken into consideration. Bumping two devices together is pretty easy, but if you don't care about keeping your device, it's even easier if you just hand it over and walk away. In a future where people are still lazy, but material goods have no value due to lack of scarcity, items will be discarded any time it is even marginally easier than the alternative.
And the various Linux companies were probably inspired by the Vulcan: all logic and reason with virtually no social skills, a propensity for being intellectually and ideologically blind-sided by those who do not share their perspective, and really dopey haircuts.
Most commercial airplanes, maybe. There are a huge number of 2 to 6 passenger airplanes out there, and they keep making more. I would like to see your explanation of how a Piper Cherokee is more like a bus than a subcompact.
Graphene is made of carbon. We are nowhere near the point where carbon is difficult to acquire, expensive, or even in limited supply.
In short, an economic comparison of graphene with gold is much like an economic comparison of eating at a restaurant with burning down your house. It's not that you can't make such a comparison... it's that such a comparison is almost entirely worthless.
Apparently you've been hiding under a rock since time immemorial, but that's the way everything is done. Try to have a nuanced political view? Nope, you're clearly a freedom-hating fascist with no moral fiber according to anyone with whom you disagree even slightly. Try to keep an open mind about art or entertainment? Nope, you have shitty taste and clearly know nothing. Hell, you can't even root for a sports team based on anything other than blind nativism and geography without being a "fairweather fan."
Basically any opinion which can't be summed up in five words or less is stupid and wrong, and just makes you some kind of elitist snob or "flip-flopper." Intellectualism is out, chest-beating tribalism is in. Welcome to the party.
Slashdot Mirror
"mostly all for trucks and beer anyway"
I wish. They're mostly for *crappy* trucks and *crappy* beer. If they were ads for quality products I might seriously consider purchasing it would be far less annoying.
They are also required to take all reasonable legal action to protect their trademark, and failure to do so can be used against them in the future. They may not care if Notch names his game "Scrolls", and may not even believe that it would meaningfully weaken their brand, but if they fail to take any action a future game could do something with far more potential to cause harm and use this example to defend themselves.
Trademarks work quite differently from copyrights, that is one of the many ways.
"Micro USB works just great if the user isn't clumsy or an imbecile."
So you're saying it doesn't work at all, then?
It was delivered to a person other than the recipient. That means it was incorrectly delivered. Whether it was incorrectly delivered because the person who addressed it made a mistake or because the person who delivered it made a mistake is immaterial to the fact that it was not delivered to the right person.
Furthermore, the rules in question belong to a legal system which is explicitly designed to handle such questions and come to meaningful answers based on the details of precisely what happened. You may believe that opening mail addressed to a person who shares a name with your next door neighbor at your address is within your rights, but if a judge and/or jury do not agree with your reading of the law that will trump any and all nitpicking and semantics.
Oddly enough, I've flown a couple of times since they started ramping up the theatrics, internationally even. I also have many friends and family members who have done the same. Neither myself nor anyone that I personally know has had any particular problems getting through airport security, nor has anyone been groped or raped by the TSA. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that if it is so common as everyone claims I must be a massively improbable outlier.
So no, I can't agree that it is all-too-plausible. I can agree that it might have happened, and I can agree that if it did it is terrible and the parties responsible should be held accountable, but I can't agree that this is something that happens to everyone.
You mean the services and infrastructure that were not designed to handle hurricanes or earthquakes because they exist in locations where those events happen only once every few decades and spending time and money preparing for them is essentially wasted effort? I doubt anything will be revisited, because there is no reason to revisit much of anything.
Keep in mind that those 50 fatalities are spread across a fairly large geographic area which just happens to be the most densely populated part of the country. In the grand scheme of things, that is very little.
I actually wonder if Irene might have had a negative death toll, disrupting enough normal travel patterns to prevent more "normal" accidental deaths than it caused.
I seem to recall that at least one of our military adventures from the past 20 years wound up being rated as safer than staying on base at home for almost exactly that reason: soldiers on mission and keeping sharp to avoid getting shot won't party and drive their cars into utility poles at 3am or get t-boned trying to race a red light at rush hour.
As a native of New England, I'm a little bit embarrassed by how my co-inhabitants handled Irene. We get major storms periodically; they cause flooding, knock out power and occasionally destroy bridges, but it's nothing new or surprising. I went to a Radio Shack to buy a wireless adapter and they had signs posted informing customers they had sold out of D and C cell batteries and, get this, crank radios. This is not an area where such a thing is even remotely necessary, most people in the city can see a dozen of their neighbors simply by looking out the window, there are plenty of roads to provide alternate routes to virtually anywhere, and there are no substantial forests, wetlands, or other natural barriers to making a worst-case travel by foot to pretty much anywhere.
The earthquake I'll give them, because that's something we just don't have and being surprised by the ground shaking when that is not something you've experienced before is pretty fair. By comparison, I doubt many Californians from the fault-line area would respond well to a Nor'easter blowing through and dropping a foot of snow and freezing rain on them, so I think we're allowed to be a bit confused by an earthquake.
Because that isn't nearly delusional or hysterical enough to be true.
Of course you can, but stopping it and getting out *without dying or destroying the vehicle* just takes a bit more time. Besides, just because you could stop and get out in the middle of the highway doesn't mean doing so is worthwhile or entirely safe; you'd still be too far away from anything, and being within spitting distance of large metal objects traveling at high speed and often controlled by individuals who probably have no business operating such a device might be less dangerous thanj a free fall from several thousand feet, but it is certainly less fun.
Using the law to go after AT&T or Verizon? That's really fucking funny.
I'm pretty sure they did. Mostly in the comments section for the story where he announced his resignation. It seemed appropriate in that time and place. Less so in a completely unrelated story about shitty telcos being shitty.
I hope that clears up your confusion.
Some people prefer to play games on dedicated game machines hooked up to much larger screens with more spacious seating arrangements. It's relatively easy to hook a computer to a TV, but if you already have a PS3 hooked up to it, it would be much easier to just use that instead.
I think a better question is why you think having *more* options, even if you ultimately choose the one you already use, is ever a bad thing.
I am wont to wantonly eat wontons, but it's probably a bad idea to say so on a dating site.
As someone who fails to meet even that definition of "religious" I concur with that opinion. Some atheists take their religious convictions just as seriously as the devoutly religious, they merely pretend not to.
As a geek living near the Berkshires, my experience is that OKCupid is pretty popular in the community. Your experience doesn't surprise me.
I have friends who are bald and non-drinkers, but have had success with online dating (I am neither, and haven't done online dating, so I have no direct experience). None of them define themselves as either of those things, nor feel any particular shame about them.
To address each separately: baldness is easier if you have a sense of humor about it. That doesn't mean you need to crack jokes about it, or even bring it up, just that you can't let it bother you or get neurotic about it. You might also consider using a profile picture which de-emphasizes that feature without hiding it: angle, lighting, context and many other factors can play a part in this, just sit down and looking through pictures of yourself until you find one where your baldness isn't what grabs attention. Plus, let's be honest, do you really *want* a relationship with a woman who is so shallow she can't look past your hairline?
As for being a non-drinker, the question that really needs to be answered is "why"? I don't really care what your reason is, but you should pin it down so you can best address it in your profile. Avoid any really negative stories about why you don't drink, such as past alcoholism or family tragedies (I don't know you, and I have no idea if anything like this is an issue... I mention it only because it is a possibility) because that would be kind of a downer, and a dating profile should really be more upbeat. If you don't drink because of strong moral or philosophical convictions, you probably should *briefly* mention them, because a compatible match may need to share them or at the very least respect them; doing so also demonstrates that you are a real person, with real thoughts, real feelings, real emotions and a real personality, which is a nice side-benefit... just be mindful that you don't cross into moralizing on it, because even if you do believe that alcohol is a terrible evil and anyone who touches it should burn, that's something to discuss further down the road. If you don't drink because you simply don't enjoy it, or have specific health concerns (such as diabetes or liver disease), I'd actually leave that out altogether... say something non-committal about it only if you can't get away with saying nothing about it, and leave that issue to be dealt with later.
The most important part is to put a positive spin on it all. You don't need to bring up detriments or drawbacks, and you should really focus on your qualities rather than your flaws. Especially where the same aspect might be viewed as both. Nobody out there is perfect, so convincing yourself that anything short of perfect just won't work only serves to put you at a disadvantage against the imperfect people who don't share the misconception.
i think the point you're ignoring is that, in their future, personal ownership of a particular device would not be taken into consideration. Bumping two devices together is pretty easy, but if you don't care about keeping your device, it's even easier if you just hand it over and walk away. In a future where people are still lazy, but material goods have no value due to lack of scarcity, items will be discarded any time it is even marginally easier than the alternative.
And the various Linux companies were probably inspired by the Vulcan: all logic and reason with virtually no social skills, a propensity for being intellectually and ideologically blind-sided by those who do not share their perspective, and really dopey haircuts.
Most commercial airplanes, maybe. There are a huge number of 2 to 6 passenger airplanes out there, and they keep making more. I would like to see your explanation of how a Piper Cherokee is more like a bus than a subcompact.
Maybe their grocery store ran out of Chips Ahoy?
Graphene is made of carbon. We are nowhere near the point where carbon is difficult to acquire, expensive, or even in limited supply.
In short, an economic comparison of graphene with gold is much like an economic comparison of eating at a restaurant with burning down your house. It's not that you can't make such a comparison... it's that such a comparison is almost entirely worthless.
Apparently you've been hiding under a rock since time immemorial, but that's the way everything is done. Try to have a nuanced political view? Nope, you're clearly a freedom-hating fascist with no moral fiber according to anyone with whom you disagree even slightly. Try to keep an open mind about art or entertainment? Nope, you have shitty taste and clearly know nothing. Hell, you can't even root for a sports team based on anything other than blind nativism and geography without being a "fairweather fan."
Basically any opinion which can't be summed up in five words or less is stupid and wrong, and just makes you some kind of elitist snob or "flip-flopper." Intellectualism is out, chest-beating tribalism is in. Welcome to the party.
Here in the States, we call that "World Class Customer Service".
Our marketing people really are top notch (or is it top gear on that side of the pond?).
That is simply untrue. JRPGs are almost always better on console, and are generally designed with consoles in mind.
It's one of the things that separates Ultima from Final Fantasy.