How can a seed that has been released into nature not be open source? Seeds, by there very nature, seek to profilierate sot it would obviously take unnatural forces to prevent them from doing so. Certainly, at least, no human govenment would make it illegal to not prevent nature from taking it's course.
Of course it happened, which is why BP will be chosen to head up this project.
I predict that Republicans will be in charge in 2018, so only the 1% will be able to buy a new car. For the other 99% this won't be an issue until 2025, if man is still alive and woman can survive.
First I played the bunny because you lied to me about your memaw, then you beat my Crushers by breaking up a relationship, but I robbed you of the lost 21 seconds. Bazinga!!!!
If enought want to support Firefox on Win8, then Win8 will succeed! As of now though, Microsoft doesn't want Firefox to succeded on Win8. Savvy consumers will only buy the things that support the things they want to be supported.
So heaven is available to anyone whether or not they follow your God's law? Say, for instance, that I preach that your particular God sucks donkey balls, would he/she hold that against me? We all know a human would, but what about a God?
...synomous with being spied upon. Because of their past goodness I would like to defend them, but when even the login to their services defaults to "staying logged in" even though they present that staying logged in could be a security risk makes one question Google's ultimate motives here. One would think that if Google truly valued privacy above all else Google would do what ever it takes to keep their user's secure above all else. I hate to hate on someone who has done me so good in the past, but what Google does in the present is what counts.
...to a "higher authority" is pretty damn stressfull in itself. Are there any Gods out there that don't require some type of worship or submission to their will to avoid being punished in some manner? Am I the only who feels that what they demand is more human than Godlike?
So what would work for everyone, for both the people who want to take pictures and for those that don't want their picture taken simply because they were in a public forum? Maybe public "privacy" zones? Seems quite the delimna for me.
True, it was the USSR's hunger for land that contributed to the fall of Poland. In the end that hunger led to the deaths of tens of millions of Russian's, but the USSR felt at the time the lives of tens of millions of Russian's was a fair price to pay.
Just what is it that you think is wrong here?
So do you think it would ethical and legal to do everything within your power to prevent a child from plummeting into an abyss? It is their network, it is their property. Unless you are okay with letting anyone and everyone trespass over what is yours then you have to agree that the owners of property have a right to control access to that property.
If I post a link to a website that which at that moment doesn't host "forbidden" content but later does, am I liable for providing access to said "forbidden" content? Logic would dictate that a person can only be held accountable for their own actions, not the actions of another.
Tyson has the artificial chicken market cornered. Seriously, try cooking up one of their birds and see if it actually taste like chicken. They are the reason why brining and marinating has become necessary before you can consume breast meat.
From productivity to timewasters, I'd be bankrupt if I had to pay for all the free software available to me due to it being being part of a Linux distribution. Yes, I know that much of the same software has been ported to proprietary systems such as Microsoft's and Apple's, but with Linux I know that from the ground up I can depend on the software in the base distro being free.