"Doing stuff for a friend" is friendly and altruistic when I *choose* to do it. When something's forcibly confiscated from me to be given to a stranger, it's not me "doing stuff", it's not for a "friend" and it's certainly not altruistic. It's also not altruistic to vote for a bill that does that, or to vote for the guy who votes for that bill.
Actually, the *are* recording a lot of phone calls. That's just a different program Snowden released info about - and there have been dozens of them.
And "just metadata" allows them to track your location, see who you speak to, and much more:
I've used Astaro for years and been very happy with it. It includes many free features (VPN is great) and there are other features you can add for a fee. Sophos purchased it a couple of years ago and still have a very featured free version.
With no such restriction, random choices on both sides lead to 33% win, 33% draw, 33% loss, right? With the opponent throwing Rock 50% of the time, assuming the other 50% is evenly divided between Paper and Scissors, if I always throw paper I'll win 50% of the time, lose 25% of the time, and draw 25% of the time.
So depending how the betting works, I'd be pretty willing.
You realize you replied to your own post (correctly) pointing out that your original correction was wrong, right? "Jackass", indeed.
Did you read the definition you posted? Thanks for making my point.
It's 'flak'
Based on what?!
"Should"? Says who, you? If I want to launch a web site with a map proclaiming that Nova Scotia is now Kevinland, you think I should be forcibly prevented from doing so?
Hey crazy person,
By "private" I didn't mean "secret" or "non-public"; I meant as part of his private life, unrelated to work.
I do not agree with his positions *at all*; I am as pro same-sex marriage as a person can be. BUT It's not illegal to have a dumb position that just about half of the country has - and that doesn't make it "right", but it means it's not outrageous or extreme in today's context. Any employee is of course entitled to say "I don't want to work with you" to their employer - and then if they don't, they should quit.
So McAvoy is glad he can express feelings without fear of retribution but because of the CEO's private views, *he* should suffer it? What hypocrisy.
This is here
... but only if you want to access *.shark on the internet, right? I'm not trying to be pedantic, just don't know if I'm missing something.
If you have a local authoritative server, why will you have to give up your local domain? (unless you actually want to access the new rightful owner's network)
"Put your company and employees in a more expensive and crowded place (and *blighted?!* = more dangerous) because I say it's better", says a guy who works for a terribly-run monopoly that depends on people needing to get where he's telling them to build.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
