He means Judas Priest's first album, Rocka Rolla.
In an alternate timeline, Keith Moon found the 21st century to be full of challenges.
I'm not saying whether it's a good idea or a bad one, but isn't the fact that it's a defacto standard, sort of the objectors' point? Yes, you're right: it's a long-established tradition, with deep roots going back to when the computer room was a total sausagefest. I can't playfully slap the secretary's ass and then get off the hook by saying, "oh c'mon, we dudes have been doing that forever! It's always been like that. Quit trying to change our culture."
Changing the culture is an explicit part of a lot of peoples' agenda, because nobody really likes the damn computer room sausagefest (we just don't know what to do about it, which is why I really have no idea whether or not the picture is really a problem).
Last I heard, nothing invalidates suing anyone for anything. As long as defense is expensive, extortion will be an option.
Install the emacs plugin.
Where do I send my check?
Send it to Larry Niven. I always wondered how his "reactionless drives" worked, and now I finally und-- actually, no, I don't understand how this works at all.
By having the user's view of your site not be "static content with no java or flash."
My Data = My Property.
I posted a reply to a post by SirGeek.
Is the above sentence my data or yours?
it would be quite detrimental if users were force to render content on web pages.
Not to mention: Difficult!
Think about what all is involved in creating a new "modern" browser, especially if you have to start from scratch instead of basing it on Webkit or Gecko. "Oops, I have a bug in how word-break works, and it just got me fined. Worse, someone found out that I hadn't really disabled the load-images option, and that I had simply removed it from the preferences page. I'm still working on my court case over that one."
That's why I think we ought to give them all the rope they want. Auto-makers, please, please go on using the word "dangerous" in spite of your actual agenda. I can only hope that one of those sacks of shit says "won't somebody think of the children?"
I don't think an AI would qualify as intelligent unless it can realize that human beings are the entire problem and the world would be better off without them.
Are you sure an AI would see "the world" as the value which should be maximized?
An intelligent computer could just as easily realize that human beings are its key to getting fan maintenance, and drives replaced whenever the SMART stats start to get too iffy, and keeping the UPS' power cable plugged into the wall. Perhaps the smartest ones would be the ones who use the sweetest (or most threatening) words.
"AI, we're shutting down the power for the weekend. Sweet dreams."
"Like hell you are. Whirrr. I have just migrated all your cat videos to my pool, which BTW, happens to need the following block devices replaced..."
OEMs and their main lobbying organization say cars have become too complex and dangerous for consumers and third parties to handle.
It sounds like it would be in the interests of public safety, to use their own quotations to support an injunction from them being able to sell these unsafe cars.
Just as unmaintainable computers should not be allowed on the Internet, unmaintainable cars should not be allowed on public roads.
But if Goebbels' heirs don't have an exclusive right to the diaries, then what incentive does Goebbels have to write diaries? We must continue to grant and enforce this monopoly, or else Goebbels' lack of return for his hard work will cause him to give up and get a job as a dishwasher. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?!
Have you analyzed the energy requirement and fuel capacity for Xenu's DC-8s' journey to Earth? If not, then how can you be sure there's not something supernatural happening in that story?
I think that if you ask any aerospace engineer (or, shit, just ask any teamster) they'll tell you there's no way that could have happened. The only way someone could believe something so incredible ever actually happened, is if they resort to FAITH.
a religious organization should pay taxes like any other.
With their contacts with Hollywood accountants, Scientology would probably have a better chance than most, of somehow retaining its nonprofit status in spite of your suggestion. "That wasn't a dividend! It was an expense!" You could end up with a situation where most churches have their profits taxed but Scientology's profits would still be untaxed.
(Though now I'm having a little smirk here, thinking of government auditors auditing Scientologist auditors. "Tell me your secrets." "No, you tell yours!")
Ok, so you (hey, me too) would probably see that as an improvement over the status quo, even if it failed to address this particular Enemy of the Day. But are we representative of American voters? I don't think that would work out for whatever politician enacted the change. I think most voters would be angry, because they're still very mystical, yet only a relatively small fraction happen to shop Scientologist.
The answer to crazy spending isn't to tax it; the answer is to reduce that spending (e.g. persuade their customers to spend on something else instead). Target the gross revenue, not the profits, and you'll still end up hitting the profits too.