Comment Re:Gravity? Thermodynamics? (Score 1) 187
Why are you spamming this irrelevant nonsense across so many threads? Cut it out.
Why are you spamming this irrelevant nonsense across so many threads? Cut it out.
No one is responsible for providing you with free entertainment.
But someone is responsible for providing you with free healthcare?
So tangential it's almost a non sequitur. Who taught you how to argue?
There's no "natural right" to radio frequencies, that's ridiculous. If everyone broadcasting via airwaves suddenly stopped, and you could no longer get free TV, who has infringed upon your "natural rights?"
No one is responsible for providing you with free entertainment.
I'm not nitpicking, I was clarifying where you were confused. Freeing up frequencies for Wifi does not have to fall within the constraint of "channels" because you won't be using a television to "tune in" to them. To reiterate, they're NOT the same thing. You don't need an "open channel" because there IS space between frequencies channels are assigned to. Similarly, there is space available in between "FM88" and "FM89" to use your own example.
FU I refuse to pay for TV.
Then you don't get TV.
Seems pretty obvious to me.
And what open frequencies? Where the hell does the FCC think Wifi devices are supposed to operate?
Channels =/= "frequencies."
They're referring to spectrum space in between "channels."
The stumbling blocks have included concerns about interference with TV signals and wireless microphones, but the FCC plans to vote next week on rules meant to resolve those issues.
Why can't those politicians vote on something more useful, like repealing the law of gravity, or laws of thermodynamics? I'm sure its likely to be equally successful.
What are you talking about? "Rules to resolve issues" doesn't sound anything like anyone implying magical physics-breaking measures, it sounds like regulations on exact frequency and signal-strength, which there would obviously be anyway. Sensationalist much?
Jesus, I had to Google both of those words.
Because they aren't real words.
To put it simply, "Simpsons did it."
If we're picking our axioms, then why can't we choose to believe in a universe which operates on a universal set of rules unless its workings are altered on a case-by-case basis by some being existing outside of those rules? That would sort out the inconsistency - you can get general rules like gravity, electromagnetism etc. but also leave room for "acts of god" which may not be subject to such rules.
Sure go for it. The thing is, "acts of god" are explainable by the general rules already.
Christians were the birth of science.
No.
What next, a duet with Justin Bieber?
I think Ludacris already stooped to that low.
It's Symantec, unfortunately.
Deck.
>He could have had a Tommy Gun too
Sorry to be a pendant, but a Tommy Gun IS a Thompson.
>implying slashdot is a futaba board
I don't think you grasped the theme here.
Nice Reddit referral in the article link there. Is this where we get our news?
Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.
