Chrome 33 was in Beta for a while before being released as stable. So these issues should have been picked up/highlighted then. How much negative feedback on the new 'new tab' page was there during the beta cycle? I am using Chromium beta cycle and soon got used to the new 'new tags' page.
You will have to ask Brains of International Rescue.
This type of thing predates the internet. Back in the days when hobbyist electronics/radio construction was reasonably popular and 8-bit (6502, Z80, 6809 etc based) were becoming available, most of the magazines were pretty 'light' on the technical/theoretical side of the hobby. Then a new magazine was launched with a much higher technical level. This high technical level did not last long as lots of people wrote in asking for it to be dumbed down and despite other letters pointing out there were a number of other magazines catering for the less technical reader the published 'caved in' and lowered the technical level to that of the existing magazines. It folded soon afterwards.
Slashdot is one of the very few sites on which I have clicked on an advertisement and actually followed through and purchased what was being advertised.
And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.
Linda: The blocked content includes child pornography sir.
What will you do now?
Reply, "so sign me up to the filter which ONLY blocks child pornography."
Surely in this internet age, anyone writing a blog or publishing a web page is the equivalent of 'The Press' in the days these precedents were set. In those days, there were no large multi-national media conglomerations, most of the 'Press' was local to a town or district and the editorial reflected the views of the (local) editor. "The Press" was anyone who could set up a printing press, employ some journalists (though some were one-man bands), print a paper and get people to buy it. So modern day blogs are just as much (or even more) in the spirit of what the drafters of the First Amendment to the US Constitution considered "The Press" as the current TV news and newspaper conglomerates.
Will NFTables still allow packets to be selectively (eg certain TCP SYN packets) passed to a user-space filter which both mangles the packet and dynamically changes the NATting? With IP tables this was relatively simple (both defining the Iptables rules and writing the userspace filter)
Maybe this is just a case of Not Invented Here, and the broadcasters are wishing that they had thought of, and implemented, first the idea of streaming live on the internet and having a PVR like service. The BBC has had this for some time allowied you to stream the currently broadcast programmes and more recently allowed you to pause and resume, as you can on a PVR. Other UK broadcasters have similar internet offerings, some even allowing you to watch certain programmes before they are broadcast on-air.
IBM did try this with the PS/2 range which used the proprietary Micro-channel slots instead of ISA. This was a spectacular flop.
It is not just professional singers who do not need electronic 'tricks' to produce good music. Many churches, schools, colleges etc have excellent choirs, and have done since before the recorded music industry was even thought of. Similarly there are many excellent amateur orchestras, and Northern British collieries had world famous brass bands - whose members were miners.
If the blocks are applied to any IP address pointed to by a blocked site, maybe as a demonstration a blocked site should add the IP addresses of all of the major UK political parties, BBC iPlayer, Youtube, Netflix, lovefilm etc. If mainstream media sites get (automatically) blocked then perhaps the backlash might force TPTB into either removing the requirement to block or require the ISPs to use a blocking mechanism with less potential for collateral damage.
Now the government will put a tax on piss...
Already been done by the Roman Emperor Vespasian.
Link to Original Source
And if you, because of disease or accident, have had your penis amputated, should you therefore be sent to the women's facility?
The question here is why women should care who they are sharing a (public) bathroom with? As far as I know women normally 'do their business' in the privacy of a closed (and unless the lock is broken, locked) cubicle. In places such as clubs and at concerts and festivals where the queues for the female facilities are too long, women are quite happy to use the male facilities where men are using the urinals in open view. So if they are prepared to use the mens bathroom when it suits them, they should not care if the (to outward appearance female) woman using the adjacent cubicle used to be a man.