I feel like there must be something to your comment, and I wish I'd seen that movie recently enough to remember anything about it.
[Note: This post is utterly sincere. I have seen that movie, but probably not within the last 20 years, so I have no idea what the context is.]
Ships full of water - multiply the difficulties to escape the gravity well by about 1000.
Perhaps these hypothetical aliens captured a comet, send their ships into orbit unmanned, and then thaw the comet's water, adding it to their ships in an environment of minimal gravity.
Or perhaps they're massively technologically advanced, and they have technology to defy gravity, so getting tons of water into orbit is trivial.
Part of this is solvable by making voting compulsory.
Or what? Throw people in jail?
Support a corrupt Republican, support a corrupt Democrat, or a rot in a prison cell. Sounds like an awesome deal to me.
I have a lot of other stuff to do (like my 100 hour work weeks)
You have a shitty job.
If that's the case, it seems like the petition in question is a very poor way to go about it.
A constitutional amendment is a non-starter. It's an incredibly difficult thing to do in any political climate, the president has no political authority to facilitate that process, and there is already a constitutional amendment that prohibits the government from censoring the internet. If they can't be bothered to follow that one, what good does anyone expect from another one?
A more reasonable request would be to ask Obama to veto those bills, or at least publicly advocate against their excesses, which would achieve either goal more effectively.
By signing this petition, you are demanding the Obama Administration to add an amendment to the Constitution that limits the power of the Government from being able to censor the Internet.
Even if someone somehow got the impression that the Obama administration did not fully support the pro-copyright laws mentioned in the petition, the president cannot simply "add an amendment" to the constitution. The process by which amendments are added to the constitution is specified in Article V. Here it is so you don't have to bother looking it up:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Note that the president has no official role in the process.
Secondly: sorry folks, Obama is not your guy in this one, even if he could amend the constitution. Frankly, I'd very surprised to see anti-corporate-copyright opinion taken seriously by any presidential administration in my lifetime. You don't get to be in that position by making an enemy of Big Media.
The previous poster had claimed that the poster he was replying to was an ass for placing the blame on GM. I was highlighting that OnStar *is* GM.
I object to the socializing private losses with public money, but that wasn't the point of my post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar
First sentence: "OnStar Corporation is a subsidiary of General Motors Which is owned 27% by the U.S. government and 12% by the Canadian government."
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Indeed.
In fact, it would appear you're being racist, in your implication that the Neanderthal race is inherently worse than other races... on the basis of what, cranial volume of a few fossils?
On the basis that they're extinct.
If TFA is correct then neanderthals live on in all of us who are not of pure sub-Saharan African descent.
I think the problem is not so much that web applications are inherently less modular or adaptable than native applications as it is that there are an abundance of web programmers who believe that a framework is a substitute for the ability to design an application. It's still a young field and there is a very low barrier to entry.
People without experience, or who can't learn the lessons of their experience as in your example, are just as capable of writing terrible and unmaintainable native applications.
You can't add quality to a web app.
Can't?
Many web apps today are of poor quality, and there are some inherent disadvantages to the medium, but I find that statement dubious.
I expect there is, but it has fuck all to do with utility billing. It's actually about laws that try to influence the way people live their lives, like excessive taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, or car seat legislation, or cycle helmets: that sort of thing. I'd have mentioned prohibition but I don't think we ever had that here.
I was under the impression that Great Britain employed prohibition to much the same extent the government does here in the US.
Or have you adopted sensible decriminalization policies like Portugal?
How many Netflix subscribers actually use the PC version? Given how few PCs are connected to TV-sized monitors...
I can't answer that question, but, anecdotally, I do. Also, I have a PC hooked up to my living room TV for Netflix and gaming.
Right off the top of my head, I can think of at least 2 other people who have PCs hooked up to TVs or projectors they use for Netflix.
I would be surprised if the number was as low as you imply, though I'm sure the majority on are on consoles or Roku type devices.
jQuery and the DOM have no place in a book on javascript.
jQuery? No, certainly not. DOM? Of course it has a place. The vast majority of people using javascript are doing DOM manipulation of some sort, and it would be a gross oversight not to include at least an explanation of it, if not a comprehensive reference.
Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.
