I take it you've never been doing really well in a game on console or ever had spam email? My nephew is very good at COD and I get calls from his mom about once a week because some douche bag is flooding their ip with data in order to ruin the kid's game. If they had to pay for all of that data I could see them having a case for a lawsuit against the ISP for allowing all the data in. Spam email is usually small if you turn off images, but if you didn't a 1 meg image in 500 plus emails a week could end up really hurting an end user.
I'm not sure that^^, or anything posters here are trying to imply can reliably be used to determine the fate of FB. We don't have anything like it to relate to. You could try to say 'well myspace blah blah blah' but myspace didn't have everyone's grandmothers posting recipes to each other. Myspace was only relevant because most of the people online had heard of it. At the time that wasn't a huge chunk of the general population and the people there were becoming internet connoisseurs who demanded more. Think of how quickly most people here expanded their horizons on the internet; exploring, checking out new things, etc. How many of the millions of internet-illiterate people on FB are doing those things? As far as MANY of them are concerned, FB is the internet. Most of the family members I have on FB are only just barely even checking out things like Youtube and probably half got a nasty virus the first time they googled something other than FB. Those people are likely scared into not doing anything but what they feel is safe. While many of us here on
Many of those people express those positive views based on pride that their fore-fathers were actually fighting on the right side constitutionally at the time and were willing to die for their beliefs. The Southern governments wanted slavery because the cotton gin forced agriculture there into a nearly one crop industry and it only worked with slavery. Slavery was, to them, a constitutional right not because it was in the constitution but because they had every opportunity to ban it when the document was written and chose not to. The facts of life for them was that Northern states had more people and therefore more political votes to bolster their own industries with legally gray laws and handouts then once they were secure in that, only then did they try to abolish slavery. Legally the federal government was obliged to back slave holding states in disputes of property but they turned a blind eye to people coming into Southern states and burning farmers to death, even those that didn't hold slaves. At the time, the states still looked at themselves as independent entities that were part of an alliance to a weak federal government. The people in the North didn't want to ban slavery because they wanted slaves to be free they wanted to control their monopoly of power. Why do you think Northern states still tolerated hatred, pain and suffering on Africans long after the war ended? There's a reason why some black people in the South still fly the Confederate flag and it has nothing to do with slavery.
Cruel and unreasonable?
The punishment should be judged by using the crime as the benchmark.
Is ten minutes of gagging or choking more cruel then the mental anguish experienced by the seven month pregnant woman he raped then killed? If not his family and lawyer should kindly go fuck themselves.
What kind of genius mods this insightful? They're like most smaller companies. They don't have a la carte plans where you pick and chose what you are going to pay for. They have one plan that is as all-inclusive as it can be and were told they had to include contraceptives. It shouldn't matter why they don't want it. I can't see why anyone but a troll would try to get a job with a religious outfit if they didn't believe the same things. I had a vasectomy two years ago because I don't want to have any more kids yet I have to pay extra money on my premiums because someone I work with may or may not want a discount on contraceptives? Socialistic stupidity. I'm paying nearly double what I did last year for the same plan and its shit like this that is driving up the cost.
CFL's are generally just over 4:1 against incandescents. A 60W equivalent CFL uses 14W-17W and others I know of are 40:9 and 23:100. I still won't buy them, though, as the cost is pennies across their life and I live in a colder climate. I tried them out and after coming home after dark only to stand there for 15-30 seconds while it warmed up was enough to make me reconsider. When they started failing much, much sooner than advertised I stopped using them. When a company comes out with a ballast that screws into a light fixture and a compact fluorescent bulb that inserts into that I will buy them. Not interested in paying absurd prices that are artificially jacked up because they chose to engineer them poorly by marrying the bulb to the ballast. This would also allow for manufacturing quick start ballasts that work properly when you come home to a cold house as well.
And this is why we value our private firearms and put up with high murder rates due to them. We allow our government to take certain actions because we hold the trump card; our willingness to die for our belief that governments should be restricted past a certain point. We are enjoying a decent life. When the government stoops to a level we find unacceptable we will forcibly remove them and start again. Countries like Germany were able to do what we can not because they were brain-washing their children to love the state first, family second. That's why Americans get all bent out of shape when schools try to get stupid and take authority away from a child's parent. We accept parents teaching their kids things we disagree with because once you control that aspect of a child's life entirely you have taken the first critical step in creating what the SS had in Nazi Germany.
It could happen in the USA, but its not likely. The undercurrent of distrust and dissatisfaction that used to only reside on the fringes of our society have crept into much of the mainstream. Obama, the savior of all and next greatest president, is at an all time low approval rating because he thought he could ride that wave of support and take away people's constitutional rights. Hopefully his wake-up call is realizing that his average approval rating is lower than the great Satan, George Bush. Sadly, though, he seems to honestly not give a shit about anything but his own agenda and the results will only be people being less trusting of his party.
Are you from the United States where this occurred? Only asking because it sounds like you are talking out of your ass with a complete lack of understanding of all aspects of this situation. Walmart always has signs up indicating where their public restrooms are. The giant sign that says restrooms is understood to be for public use because they are publicly advertised. You are definitely correct that if someone went into an employee only restroom they would not seek to have you charged with theft because trespassing is a more serious charge. You are also correct that electricity is not an object that can be handled or actually taken like a bottle of soda, however it is definitely quantifiable and has value. You need to read up on theft of services. Its a different part of law than theft of property but it still counts as theft and at a minimum is a misdemeanor in most places. Most minor misdemeanors where the cop didn't actually see the crime occur will only result in a ticket and/or a summons to court but if a person admits to committing a misdemeanor or they are caught in the act the can be arrested for it.
Your analogy sucks. Walmart has PUBLIC restrooms. That means they are offering its services, usage and water for free. Its not theft just because the 7 Up is for sale and has a price printed on it. It has a monetary value that the victim of the theft would have had to pay for if the thief wasn't caught. In this situation there is no analogy needed. It was a guy stealing electricity. If the school had this outlet obviously located and dedicated for people to charge their phones or laptops that would be a different situation. They did nothing of the sort. Some jackass thought he would get away with stealing because hey, its such a small amount he's stealing so no one would ever be mad, right? Did he ask permission or offer to pay for the electricity beforehand? Nope. He even admitted that he routinely steals from publicly accessible outlets and never asks permission because its always such a small amount. If I ever walked out of my house and saw that a neighbor had plugged into the outlet on the side of my house I would definitely call the cops. What kind of entitled douchebag would ever think it was ok to steal so long as it was a small amount? Walk into a bank, reach over the counter and grab a nickel and see if you don't get arrested.
I thought they denied her because the record was sealed and she refused to show them?
Taken from "The Age and Progenitor Mass of Sirius B", (which most astrophysicists hold to be the standard when dealing with how massive the star actually is):
"This result yields in principle the most accurate data point at relatively high masses for the initial-final mass relation. However, the analysis relies on the assumption that the primordial abundance of the Sirius stars was solar, based on membership in the Sirius supercluster. A recent study suggests that its membership in the group is by no means certain."
So the only way they can determine Sirius B's mass is to first determine its age. To determine it's age they have had to make an assumption that it was part of the Sirius supercluster yet a recent study suggests that its membership in that group is by no means certain. Therefore everything they have said regarding its mass is by no means certain. If that is by no means certain than how can any observation of its gravitational relationship to nearby objects be certain? Going from that, if everything they have determined is by no means certain, than why say that it is so certain that there must be Dark Matter there to make the equations work?
This quote from wikipedia is the accepted reason why it is said to exist. "Astrophysicists hypothesized dark matter due to discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain: stars, gas, and dust."
First and foremost the scientists that decided it needed to be created to begin with had to first decide that their ability to calculate the masses of objects, (that are too far away to reliably gauge any relevant data except through speculation or guess work), somehow had to be irrefutable. Tell me first, how the data that was collected is irrefutable. You can't. Except in a land of non-science there isn't a need to create something to prove something else unless that something else is irrefutable. There isn't a way to calculate a stars mass exactly because we have absolutely no idea what is inside their cores and at best are making educated guesses based on what we know about our own planet. You might be right, but the data set containing the correct answer could possibly be anything. How does a logic minded person step from "we made a guess and the evidence says we are incorrect" to "obviously everything we have done is infallible therefore it must be something else we need to create in order to justify our previous GUESS".
I get it. People want this to be real. But there really isn't a justification for it's existence as a serious pursuit other than ego. There is no honesty in this approach. Honesty would be admitting that maybe we don't know as much as we claim about gravity and its effect on the fabric of space and even the tiniest degree off at the start will skew the end results dramatically. Honesty would be admitting that if we guessed wrong on the mass of stars, (and it is a guess no matter how educated a guess we claim), that any answer we get is somewhat suspect and not some infallible truth that demands creation of something else. You can take any wild guess or even an outright lie and through a long progression of made up supporting data make it appear to be fact. It doesn't make it a fact it just buries your original guess or miscalculation at the bottom of a giant pile of garbage.
Too bad you took the coward's road AC. I would have modded you up instead of replying. I definitely feel that Dark Matter only exists because they want it to exist. It's always bothered me that we call something science that isn't really scientific at all. It's pseudo-science at best. The bigger issue is that religious people claim to have the answers. Believing they are all idiots and fools, (and saying as much to anyone that will listen), has left the scientific community in the position of NEEDING to show that they have all the answers. If one group says 'We have all of the answers' and another group responds 'you know, we really know jack shit compared to the totality of what's out there, we're just 99.99% certain that those other guys don't know what they're talking about' is the only honest answer. Instead people don't want to be perceived as lacking in knowledge when compared to someone they deem their enemy. This has lead to several areas of scientific research turning to theories that have little basis in reality except to cover that their previous theories were wrong when presented with new discoveries.
At what point did it become ok in the scientific community to keep on with a theory that evidence contradicts? Usually, when a theory is shown to be wrong its thrown out or at least revised, not magically shown to be correct overnight by making up something else to support it. I once read a book called The Road to Reality. Very long and fairly serious reading that started turning me against one of my favorite areas of science about 75% of the way through the book. The day I realized that the previous three chapters I had read were not science, but rather theories that were based on other theories based on yet other theories that only existed because the first theory was shown to be wrong at some point, was a real downer.
We use Citrix where I work and they flipped out over us being productive. Too many times the server would bog down to the point nothing would load and there isn't a save locally function. Instead we just used the email function to attach the files, send them to gmail and work on them anywhere.
I think you started down the right path but got distracted enough to miss the bigger point. If the next biggest thing I am waiting for, (Dayz Stand Alone atm), was a Linux exclusive I would sadly move on to play something else. What makes this situation different from the one describe? There is a very decent chance that something else you would want to play is in the pipeline for Wii. For Linux there is not and for a guy like me with 200 or so games in my Steam library that means a lot. As a matter of fact, it means everything to the gamer side of me. I like to spend my time gaming on a rig that boots up, has never had a virus and hasn't had any crashes or issues that take what little time I have away from gaming. For me that's a Win7 machine. I couldn't care less if people have had issues with Windows. I've had issues with Linux. Have tried several distros and even given that Steam has some games that run on that platform I still had enough issues to stay away. SteamOS takes all that away as its designed exactly for what I want to use it for. What it doesn't take away is that there aren't enough games out for it and there isn't a reasonable timeline when ALL major publishers will put ALL of their games out for Linux. Until then most gamers, (and therefore most money), will stay on Windows rather than Linux. Hit me up in ten years and if things have changed I'll probably already be Windows free.