On Sunday, i wanted to go kayaking at Kensington Metropark, which i've done in the past. I aimed to leave at 3 with a friend for the 20 minute drive, but we got there after 5. Regardless, they weren't renting boats due to high winds. So, off we went to Heavner Canoe & Kayak Rental, instead, which was on the way, and he had wanted to go to anyw
How is it censorship if a person wants to have information about themselves not be in search results?
I didn't mean to imply that wanting something could possibly be censorship. Censorship is something you might do in order to get want: do you rebut the false information (or pollute/dilute the true information) or do you point a gun at someone's face?
And escalating to violence is not always necessarily the dumbest move. Like I said, "loose lips sink ships." But c'mon, own up to censorship label whenever you do it, and understand the sword-beats-pen outlook that you're helping to re-popularize.
But more importantly: think about whether or not a policy of forceful response can work or if it really is expedient. Go through the thought experiments, where someone says something you don't like and you respond by whacking a few moles. (Or in this case, whacking an unrelated mole who is pointing at another mole.) Does this lead to a winning scenario, Ms Streisand?
If swords-over-pens still completely loses, then yes: I do think "suck it up and take it" is a superior strategy, since it's no worse for the person being maligned and has significantly less collateral damage. That doesn't mean it's the only option, but if we're going to pretend that we have only a mere two options, then it's the better of the two.
That's why, when I (soon!) become a genocidal conqueror, I will be asking people for their voting records before I line them up against the wall.
Curses! WTF is this "secret ballot" my advisors are bringing up? *sigh* There goes my invasion plan. (If I can't have the executions, then I don't see why to bother.)
And let's also hope that nobody ever actually commits rape and gets caught and convicted.
Censorship is always a two-edged sword. I have never heard of any form of censorship where you couldn't rightly cite some examples where it's a good idea, but freedom-lovers can play the examples game too.
Loose lips sink ships, but the king is taxing us unfairly. Which side are you on?
I'm not comfortable with what you wrote (yet). The easy route for me--right now--is to keep doing it the way that i know. I wonder though, which method works in more browsers (and versions) that support scripting?
Right now, i want to add a Home button to Memrise after a course review (maybe even during a review) or learning session. The top bar changes and it takes extra clicks to get home, even when the session is over.
(Source not shown to do "Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters." And to think,
So, the easy way out might be:
var review = document.getElementById('gardening-area');
review....= (add button here) + review.....;
What would you do?
As usual, I prefer to blame the victims (us).
On a desktop personal computer, it would never occur to you to think "Oh, I just assume I'll get software maintenance from my ISP," and if anyone ever actually said that then you would point your finger at them and laugh and their over-the-top stupidity.
But change the form factor of the personal computer to handheld and suddenly we don't do the pointing and laughing. On the very face of it, it's JUST AS STUPID. So WTF?
Users are not exercising their common sense. They simply aren't. You can make excuses for not using common sense and explain why we did this very obviously stupid thing, but don't pretend it's not happening. Every morning you're getting up and putting a "kick me" sign on your back. You know that you're doing it and you know what consequences will invariably flow from it.
"I don't have any other signs to put on my back! All the signs on the market say 'kick me!'"
"Just because I wear a 'kick me' sign that doesn't mean anyone really has license to kick me! They shouldn't be doing that to me!"
Ok, go on and say those things. You even have some valid points, and the things you're saying might even be technically correct. But that doesn't mean you don't sound stupid, because you don't have not getting kicked in your requirements! WTF, people?!
Stop thinking of handhelds as some weird special case where ALL your experiences with software maintenance magically don't apply! THAT'S STUPID! So yeah, I'm a victim-blamer. You know when you buy your PC from your ISP or from a manufacturer who has a history of preventing maintenance, what's going to happen. And when people pretend they don't know the invariable consequences of buying PCs from ISPs, the stupidity takes on a flavor of dishonesty. Mmmm, yum!
Ah, ok, i think i got it (as best i can while brushing my teeth.
If i use this in the near future, i ought to let you know (and thank you again.)
I'm a quickie editor when something annoys me enough, so, i don't feel like learning it extensively, though admittedly, it'd be nice.
I ought to come back to this post before writing a new script though. Maybe some more interest will help me appreciate this information a lot more.
Shut up, Toby.
His name is Kunte Kinte.
I hold out hope that the two of them are getting air time not because they could win, but because they are more interesting than Clinton v. Bush. Plenty of time for that boring crap later.
Vendors cannot be held responsible for stupid (or non-existent) engineering and policy.
Without knowing the GS/contractor divide at OPM, it's hard to say who is ultimately to blame. If OPM gave carte blanche to the contractor, the latter is generally the one at fault. If the government micro managed the contract and ignored suggestions, the blame is back with them.
Jim Webb doesn't strike me as particularly interested in the office.
That Goldwater girl was never liberal enough to want it.