Comment fortune (Score 1) 192
Anyone want to guess what the fortune inside says?
Anyone want to guess what the fortune inside says?
No
I've never fully understood this: Isn't creating an in-depth , extremely 'personal', profile of an actual 'individual' online with a 'fake name' exactly the same as with a 'real name' that is on a birth certificate and the tax bill?
What if I don't read the ads in the paper and only use the subscription to access online content? Blows that logic out of the water.
You're still increasing their physical 'circulation rate', of which their advertising policies, prices, and 'clout' are all based upon. No one can prove you read an ad in a paper; But they can prove that you're a subscriber that could POSSIBLY look at them.
This is how they make money; They've (artificially) inflated their physical circulation of the paper, thus trying to make more ad money. It's not rocket science.
It is, but AC is right that another way around the paywall is to just remove the &gwh=... from the URL. Works like a charm, and I think there are even automated tools to do that.
Interestingly, I can also browse freely at work without having either cookie issues or monkeying with URLs. I'm guessing that somebody with the same public IP has a subscription, so NYTimes just assumes everything's fine.
javascript:(function() {var s=document.createElement('script');s.setAttribute('src','http://toys.euri.ca/nyt.js');document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(s);})();
Add this as a bookmark on your bookmarks bar. Presto, go-away'o.
This is what I don't like about Google, above all else. This is utterly contemptible behaviour and quite often why I find myself swearing at them as I try to find a work-around.
Getting too big for their britches.
And this is why I am downloading Opera now. Why is it once a company gets more 'market-share' in whatever 'industry', they start being absolute dickheads?
Without the FBI getting involved, this guy wasn't a threat.
Unless, of course, he managed to contact actual terrorists and helped them or was able to obtain anything dangerous from them. Which he was much less likely to do with the FBI's involvement than without it.
There are are a lot of IF's in your statement. Personally, I'd hate to be arrested on a series of IF's.
In Canada at least, there has been a serious lack of news about this protest. It's mentioned in passing sometimes, but that's about it. I don't even really know what it's about. I heard "protesting corporate greed in America", but I mean that's a tough thing to protest.. you're basically protesting capitalism..
Anyways, my question is why is there such a media gap about this protest? Is it on purpose (tin foil hat), or is it just because it's vague and nobody really cares about it, so the media doesn't bother?
There is no doubt , in my mind, that it's 100% on purpose. As word would spread, it could only help add numbers to the protesters force. There is very very very little media coverage, even denouncing the protests. Out of sight, out of mind. Given enough time (if we have enough time), individuals will spread the word to the majority of the population; At least those who semi-frequently use the internet.
And when we do it to buy for $200,000 a house that could be built for $50,000, we are selling ourselves cheap (hoping, of course that someone will be willing to sell himself to us for even less in the future).
You've obviously never priced out materials that are required to 'build' a house. Or, for that matter, partaken in a decently large renovation project.
Just as a construction worker or other manual laborer may look at my job as a network administrator and say, "That's not working!", to someone outside of the industry, investing doesn't look like work...but I dare say that it's longer, harder work -- with more risk -- than you'd think.
Coming from a carpenter who is also quite 'tech', I will dare say it is just a different type of work. You're at least absent from many physical (short term and different long term) risks that come with the trades.
You should try it sometime.
Hey, remember when they banned metal lunchboxes?
HAHAHA.
Good call. Just waiting for the iPad assault charges news article to be linked.
Thanks to Disney and the corrupt shills that have taken over the government, games made in the 1980s won't "expire copyright" and return to the public domain until sometime after 2100. If there isn't yet ANOTHER "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" copyright extension passed in the meantime.
Part of the problem is that copyright doesn't take into account the life of the medium any more. Imagine what happens when most books are only available on e-readers and most e-readers no longer read the format the book was put out in (not so hard to imagine: think of some of the books that only exist on B&N Nook format and imagine that B&N goes under and nobody bothers to code a translator because "well most of it is on Kindle anyways", followed by B&N's servers shutting down and nobody having a remaining copy of the book anywhere).
*this* is one, if not the major, reason I am hesitant about the entire ebook trend. I understand the concept of being able to read something *now*. I understand travelers being able to bring one of my entire bookshelves with them, wherever they go, without lots of heavy boxes. But paper doesn't expire (naturally, it decays, but lets face it, it will no doubt last a lot longer than many digital formats), cannot be 'revoked' without a typical BNE scene.
And trees are a renewable resource. So, with the exception of the shipping required to get books to bookstores (if they even exist in the future, at this rate) and/or personal houses, they are pretty green friendly.
Plus, who doesn't love a paper book? I just don't understand, I suppose.
And yet the world is still full of bad guys. Tell me oh wise one, if the CIA is so powerful and has ALWAYS worked this way with unparalleled success and competency, then why isn't our world a better place right now?
I'm sure that all depends on your qualifier 'our'.
It's no doubt a better place for certain people. Sadly, it doesn't sound you're part of that group.
A shame.
Running the motor only does not mean that other internals are not seized up, thus will not create electricity...
You need to start it, and put a LOAD on the generator, so it, well, generates. People oftentimes never do this; So while the engine starts right up fine, the sucker still will not make any power. They realize this when they actually lose power, at which point, they are far more 'letdown'.
Just a tip!
Come December we will be celebrating Firefox 22. and sometime next year it will be Firefox 42 and we will be left looking for a question.
I liked this post quite a bit. It was very mildly relevant, but I'm happy I was geeky enough to chuckle.
Cheers,
Bny
Big brother moves to THE CLOUD!
(Hey, you, get off of my CLOUD)
"What man has done, man can aspire to do." -- Jerry Pournelle, about space flight
