unless tehy r lesbo its in there biology to always choose teh alpha male dew to inate hypergamy. being beta aint bad, just u wont get ne girls. betas and omegas, or sum call nice guys r teh whiners w/ week genes so tehy aint got nuthin to offer a girl for breeding. alphas, or "jerks" and "douchebags" as teh week gened nice guys call us, r teh winners w/ the strong genes sutible for passing onto teh next generation and teh girly nice guys cant handle that. oh girls change once tehy reach 30 or 40 and their used up. tehy change there tune by saying tehy want a nice guy to settle down with and even secretly want a male w/ exp so tehy can land a nice guy. well nice guys gues what, only teh jerks will have exp so u nice guys will keep losing out while those girls will still keep giving us alphas plenty of pussy. but all is not lost u nice guys can turn gay and get each other. but if u dont like that you can either be happy being perm virgins or just kill urselfs, theirs no girl out there for ya. lmfao
Oh wow, a twelve year old that thinks he knows everything about dating and females. I mean, this is the worst grammar and spelling I have ever seen on Slashdot.
Who gives a shit what you think? Never heard of you before and probably will never hear of you again, so why should I give any kind of a fuck about your attention-whoring self?
Sheesh some posts here really make me wonder sometimes, so much for "News for Nerds"....
Not everyone is like you. Some nerd like you do not like to cook while others do and I happen to be one that loves to cook. In fact when I cook I tend to try to be inventive and try different flavour combinations. As for the book "The four hour chef" it does not look like it will be a worthwhile investment. However, I will still into it and may actually purchase if it looks like a worthy investment. It doesn't hurt to read several sources both online and offline to learn different cooking and baking techniques.
There is no expiration of trademark.
First off it in a way it can "A trademark registration may remain in force indefinitely, or expire without specific regard to its age. For a trademark registration to remain valid, the owner must continue to use it. In some circumstances, such as disuse, failure to assert trademark rights, or common usage by the public without regard for its intended use, it could become generic, and therefore part of the public domain." Furthermore Universal never owned the trademark.
"First, Universal knew that it did not have trademark rights to King Kong, yet it proceeded to broadly assert such rights anyway. This amounted to a wanton and reckless disregard of Nintendo's rights. Second, Universal did not stop after it asserted its rights to Nintendo. It embarked on a deliberate, systematic campaign to coerce all of Nintendo's third party licensees to either stop marketing Donkey Kong products or pay Universal royalties. Finally, Universal's conduct amounted to an abuse of judicial process, and in that sense caused a longer harm to the public as a whole. Depending on the commercial results, Universal alternatively argued to the courts, first, that King Kong was a part of the public domain, and then second, that King Kong was not part of the public domain, and that Universal possessed exclusive trademark rights in it. Universal's assertions in court were based not on any good faith belief in their truth, but on the mistaken belief that it could use the courts to turn a profit."
Royalties on something they don't own? Sounds like thievery to me.
I honestly cannot speak to the MP3.com case as I'm unfamiliar with it.
Essentially UMG sued MP3.com for everything then bought them up at a discounted price just to bury them. It was over the my.mp3.com service which is very similar to what Amazon.com is offering today. The real reason Universal sued for so much was MP3.com was a competitor to Universal and Universal hates competition.
If an artist signs away their rights than it's a problem for the artist. No one forces them to sign. I know several bands that never signed and all of them made a good living prior to the theft of their works.
Except they renege on their contracts. They are telling their artists one thing then doing another. I do agree that artists shouldn't sign with UMG as they are not trustworthy and they are way behind the times.
P2P has done more damage to the independent artist than anything else. Stop trying to blow smoke up my ass.
Not necessarily. P2P can be useful for getting artists known. Not all artists mind that their music is shared. That doesn't detract from my main point, Universal is a bully and a thief just as it always has been. The best thing is to avoid anything by Universal rather than download or purchase anything by them.
So since one person is a thief it's ok for everyone to be a thief? What kind of logic is that?
In other words you support the biggest thief of all, Vivendi Universal? The ones that sued Nintendo and others over trademark infringement when King Kong was in the public domain? The ones that sued Sony over creating a video cassette for watching movies because it could be used for copyright infringement? The ones that sued MP3.COM nearly out of existence over a service similar to what Google and Amazon offer today? The ones that have locked artists into long-term contracts only to totally control the works of their artists while being totally oblivious to how modern music promotion works?
Universal has a history of bully tactics that amounts to thuggery to maintain the status quo even if it slows or halts technological advancement in the entertainment sector. Hell they even reneged on their royalty payments to their own artists. Supporting them is essentially supporting the elimination of independent studios and artists because Universal has and always will show a dislike for competition and will always find ways to eliminate their competitors through legal bullying, especially when their competitors support indie studios and artists.
I agree with one point, too much crappy food is the problem. People are getting too much of certain types of fatty acids (saturated and trans-fatty) while not getting enough of others (poly and monounsaturated) . Plus people are getting too many of the wrong carbs. How many people have enough soluble fiber in their diet? How many people have enough insoluble fiber in their diet? Whole grains are not necessarily the problem. Oats have a great number of nutrients. One such benefit is soluble fiber. Oats also contain the amino acids phenylalanine and tryptophan. The problem comes with all of the sweeteners being added to the oatmeal. Is the oat the only source of these nutrients? No they are not. The key to getting as many of the proper nutrients as possible is balance and of course trying to balance a diet is too much work for quite a few people. They would rather consume to what some corporation or some conspiracy theorist tell them to while not using critical thinking skills to decide on their own.
Odd, I have downloaded quite a few free ebooks for my Kindle, directly from Amazon. Guess what, they were from this century. Just go to these two websites and they will point anyone in the right direction.
Even the mainstream Christians are torn on that one. Some believe in the trinity while others believe that Yahweh and Yeshua are one in the same. All denominations of Christianity go by a simple phrase found in the Gospel according to John, chapter 3 Verse 16.
Nope, no feathers riled at all. You can view the universe any way you see fit just as I do right now. You should have every right to speak your mind just like I do as well. What you have posted does not harm anyone.
On the subject of Atheism while I do not agree with the view that there are no deities I do feel that it is wrong for people to discriminate against others for being Atheist. Case in mind, Lance Armstrong had to give up his medals because he allegedly used "Performance enhancing drugs" simply because some were claiming he did. It was a bloody witch hunt against him for being Atheist. That is what riles up my feathers, the intolerance for others simply because they are different.
Back to Wicca, I can only speak for myself, not for others, as to logic behind choosing Wicca. I chose it to grow spiritually. To learn to not only tolerate others that are different, but also accept them as well. Learning from others is the way to becoming wiser. Wisdom will allow for me to see whether or not my actions will harm others before I take them. Through wisdom I can become more accepting of others regardless of beliefs or lack thereof. While I may not be perfect I do realize that perfection is merely a destination and my life is but a path I travel along to reach my destination. Even though I will never make it to my destination I will do my best to get as close as possible.
Do I believe that Wicca is for everyone or that everyone should be Wiccan? Definitely not as each one of us has a unique path to travel and our paths will cross from time to time. But just because someone chooses a different religion or no religion at all doesn't make him or her any more or less of a person than anyone else on this planet.
Now, with the laws Pakistan's PM is demanding. Mere laws will not erase the hate, just cover it up. Those laws will allow the hatred to continue to boil to the point it will explode. Once it does we will have more violence and violence will beget more hatred and violence.
Christianity is blasphemy to a Muslim. Islam is blasphemy to a Jew. Mormonism is blasphemy to a Christian.
Actually Mormonism is a denomination of Christianity.
Also not all Muslims, Jews, Christians feel that other religions are blasphemy to them.
And us atheists, well no religion thinks that ain't blasphemy.
I can't speaks for other religions, however I can speak about mine. As a Wiccan I do not see Atheism as blasphemy and AFAIK no other Wiccan sees Atheism as blasphemy. What we do believe is "An ye harm none, do what ye will" and denying someone his or her right to believe or disbelieve as they wish is harming someone.
So, would this mean that everybody just shuts up about their particular brand of religion or does the world have to pick just one? Because, otherwise it is a joke of an idea.
How about allowing each person choose his or her religion freely, even if it is none of the above. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are both, IMO, quite important and should not be limited just because someone is simply "offended."