Comment Re:Way to go (Score 0, Troll) 452
Which assertion?
That their audience has been reduced and as such far fewer people can hear what they have to say?
Wow, you just keep moving that fucking goal post, don't you?
Which assertion?
That their audience has been reduced and as such far fewer people can hear what they have to say?
Wow, you just keep moving that fucking goal post, don't you?
Less Right Wing homeschooling alternatives might crop up in response to this Texas schoolbook foolishness. I'm getting worried for my (not yet school-aged) child.
If one goes to the UK Patent office page [ipo.gov.uk] (governed by EU laws) which states what can and can't be patented you will find that it only says you can't patent "some computer programs".
Exactly like the EPO's reading of the law.
If, however, an invention meets the criteria in that it relates "to how something works, what it does, what it is made of, or how it is made." then it is fine (assuming, of course, it is inventive and non-obvious)
Then the specific exclusion of computer programs in the law makes no sense.
Like I said, the EPO (and as you point out most national patent offices) reads the law one way. Lots of people, apparently including the European Parliament (because they actively refuse to remove the exclusion of computer programs), read it the other way. The courts haven't spoken and likely won't anytime soon.
Thus, not a real power issue... that's just the excuse some people make.
I won't disagree that Apple uses a heavy, and many times unfair, hand in management of their apps, but when the 3.0 firmware came out and things like Push notifications and Apple-built multitasking apps came to the fore, a lot of people started seeing substantial battery drainage. Add to this the introduction of 3G and the battery life plummets.
I'm certainly not suggesting this is the only reason, but I think it has a lot more to do with the current lack of multitasking than any conspiracy by all of the upper level execs at Apple.
if you try to put salt on your food we'll throw you in the fucking slammer.
This is not the sound of a *fwoosh* as your joke goes by, just a slight clarification as to what the bill is actually saying. The bill actually says that I, as an individual, can put as much salt into my food as I want. You, as the restaurant owner / chef / waitstaff / bartender, cannot do it for me.
Quite frankly, I don't think that this law goes far enough. Butter, oil, and any possible allergen should be kept out before it makes it makes it to the table. That way I get to be the one to choose my food should taste. My options may well be, bad, really bad, and god-awful, but at least I am empowered! I have the right to choose
I could respond by turning this into a car analogy and showing how equally irrational your post is in that context as well, but why bother, it won't change anything and you'll still be an irrational gun hater.
Just like theres a difference between a person rambling on the cell phone while getting dressed driving through the city at 90mph and a normal driver, this is also a difference between this idiot and other gun owners.
It takes a special breed of irrational to make your sort of post.
I assure you that we gun toters feel no more sympathy for this moron than the idiots a few years back who tried to trim their hedges with a lawn mower by picking it up and holding it over the hedges. They are equally freaking stupid. I share something in common with both of them, I drive a car, I use a lawn mower and I own a gun.
We all also own knives, pens and pencils which can be stabbed in someones throat or fallen on accidentally if left laying in the wrong spot.
I have not killed anyone, even though I'm more than capable of doing so. Some of us a capable of surviving and not harming others around dangerous things, I take it from the sound of your post that are unaware of this ability. I'm going to have to also assume you don't own a car, have any sharp objects in your home, or even a home for that matter since it could possibly harm you. Hell, I can't see how you can even eat since its more likely that you'll die from a food allergy than an shooting (accidental or intentional).
You describe a situation where someone woke by surprise and half asleep shoots someone who didn't deserve it, someone so asleep they are that unaware of their situation isn't likely to be able to hit the broad side of a barn either. An accidental shooting like that would be something like a kid walking into daddies bedroom and daddy blows his head off by accident. Of course this doesn't happen because daddy has known for a long time that the kid randomly wakes up in the middle of the night since its been doing that since before it could walk.
Really, accidental shootings are fucking rare, get some perspective.
It's not a self defense item. I have a baseball bat, alarm system, a black-belt, and a dog for that.
Guns aren't the best home defense solution when you have a kid since you need to keep them loaded and accessible for that.
I still think they amplified the results.
Agreed. They don't seem to have a link on their website that describes their research methodology. Displaying a bunch of graphs proves nothing.
... would then get shoved into the Sunday midnight slot, then cancelled after 5 episodes. Three years later, you'll buy the series for $25 at Walmart.
Not that we're bitter...
I'm kind of torn on the whole Firefly fiasco, on one hand the best SciFi TV show of all time died in childbirth, on the other hand we have an absolutely amazing work of art: one seasons worth of episodes that are unsullied by the eventual shark-jumping that would have eventually happened.
Though I would LOVE to know where Whedon intended to go with Shepard Book.
To most people, it appears to be one-click, but you're basically patenting the idea of fooling people into thinking you have one-click ordering.
I have always wondered about this "feature". I'm used to having all of my items in one shipment, one box. Then Amazon's fulfillment centers became - not sure how to describe it, but more of a "just in time" inventory system. So your orders can come from different warehouses. They asked if you wanted it all in one box, or ship as things become available, or cheapest shipping.
To me, that was far more innovative than "click", box ships, "click", box ships, "click", box ships.
In fact, based on your description "one-click" purchases simply queue up for a length of time and they decide how to ship the lot themselves. To me, this is less useful than any other way they do it, and gives Amazon the opportunity to get the most shipping fees out of you.
If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -- Stanley Garn
