I'd say this is profitable
There's money in making old books modern.
I particularly like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
539 posts • joined 17 Jun 2009
There's money in making old books modern.
I particularly like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
In that case we should kill all beavers then.
I guess another part of the (naive) perception is that nuclear power is synonymous with nuclear bomb.
It just makes me think of the whole thing about flying being one of the safest forms of travel yet it is a great cause of anxiety in many many people.
Possibly because when things go wrong they go colossaly wrong and bad plane crashes are generally horrific in terms of losses and gruesomeness, similarly when (and it's the only one really of note) Chernobyl happened there were massive consequences.
I guess it's just perception.
Are you mental?
Smartphone market didn't exist before Apple made it? So there were no smartphones before 2007?
Fucking hell, someone better tell RIM, Nokia, Samsung, IBM, Motorola they shouldn't have bothered and they should just stop now, and let Apple trademark the word smartphone. If they could they would.
I get it, you believe the hype that apple make everything and they were there first for everything, but let's face it, that's bullshit.
Because there is one stupid trademark there should be more of them?
I was thinking of the "At-Risk Survivors" category, but if you want to be a bitch about it that's fine.
What a moron, blind obedience .
Seriously what kind of criminal carries ID on them when they're robbing a bank anyway?
Lock him up throw away the key, award him a darwin.
I like Veal, and Zebra, Kudu, Wildebeest, Lamb, Venison, Wild Boar, Ostrich, Bison, Kangaroo, Springbok & Blesbok
Even some insects.
Nothing seems to be quite as good as a decent slice of smoked pig though.
I call parody and fair use.
So stuff Lady Gaga, actually no, belay that. I really wouldn't.
But surely the whole point of the court case is party (or parties) A versus party (or parties) B
I'm not sure why it would make a difference that it's v. said "and"
probably some bizarre legalese rules
It's the legalese and the strict adherence to the word of the law whilst remaining completely ignorant of the spirit of the law which makes those fluent in legalese a lot of money, IMO (allegedly etc.).
It seems pretty obvious to me
Whitelist - If it's on the whitelist it's bubbled to the top
Blacklist - If it's on the blacklist it's dragged down to the bottom (or excluded altogether)
There does seem to be an argument about the lexicology coming from Google, but as the article says, Google have used the terms themselves in the context of search. Any semantic argument is just a fallacy. Simply calling it by another name doesn't make it something else. You can't really choose to ignore a simple term such as blacklist or whitelist.
If you were to call a horse a dog, it would still be a horse.
I'm hoping they wont have a war against underwear, or hygeine, or cardboard.
Or daylight, I quite like daylight.
And shoes, they're useful.
Sure, a lot of references citing App store may be referring to the Apple App Store, but I think that a lot will be prefixed. I'm sure El Reg's are always prefixed.
Apple App Store
Orange App Store
Blackberry App store
Android App store
So are Apple maybe ignoring the prefix in their analysis?
I mean seriously trademarking your own name?
Love the comparison though.
Going for some kind of anonymous twat-o-tron legal feedback loop where the anonymous commentards repeatedly try to sue other anonymous commentards for defamation of their already dubious character?
I don't think they'd run around and desert you either.
You think websites appear on google just by chance?
The issue is when you attain a level of recognition through google and other websites, through word of mouth, other advertising and just generally performing better than the alternatives. Your ranking grows to number one on the google website.
The google decide to move into your market and suddenly you find that regardless of their capability or price your customer base drops and they are suddenly the market leader, meanwhile your revenues force you into administration.
You can live with the advertised services because it's clear they are adverts, but when the results are simply modified by the Mountain View Chocolate factory you have no way of competing.
Like when Microsoft tried to force everyone to use IE, you could have chosen not to use the MS OS, but that was more expensive than to just use IE.
You could choose not to use google, but then you don't appear on the worlds no.1 search engine.
If google decide to move into your line of business and bumped you down their search results you lose business, it doesn't matter whether you're better, cheaper or whatever.
Their monopoly on search was home grown so I don't begrudge them that, but it shouldn't be able to be used to gain a monopoly in other markets.
Your point, Scorchio, would seem to be that people on the internet can be tracked. I do not dispute that.
My point is that Aaron Barr and yourself seem to have the (in my opinion misguided) impression that the Anonymous collective is a hierarchy and that in determining who the leaders of this hierarchy are is to have infiltrated Anonymous.
I don't think Anonymous works that way and that if ultimately you removed what you consider to be "the head" that the body would not die, it would just grow another head.
It's an IRC channel.
The point of a loose collective is that it expands and contracts, leadership is transient and generally irrelevant. That's what anonymous is.
Trace a bunch of people logged on, a bunch of others log in, take them down another channel opens.
There will always be more to rage against the machine.
Can you understand the simile now?
It's quite amusing, they got Penny (CEO) to go and speak to the Anonymous IRC and there's a log of the whole conversation - http://pastebin.com/x69Akp5L
I think more than anything this proves that corporations and organisations are just a bunch of people, and each and every one of them has their own opinions, they lie, they slander, but they're also truthful, witty & endearing. Every now and then there's a fuckwit who seems to value themselves over others though.
I pity Penny of HBGary, but the anonymous people have made fair points (albeit in a flippant and sonetimes surreal manner)
Aaron Barr seems in this case to be the fuckwit, claiming to have infiltrated anonymous, seems a bit like someone saying I've invaded Midgaard (all you mudders out there know what I'm talking about)
When the fuck would that be used?
Let me get this straight, some actual AMERICANS are saying that the biggest and fastest is not the best?
That's colossal, it's like they've turned British.
Superpower not quite so super any more?
Ambassadors do speak for nations, so he was speaking for you.
That's the way it works.
If you're going downhill with a tailwind
that would have worked better if he was French?
This might be okay, if the police don't abuse their powers.
Of course that never happens does it.
A genre vastly overlooked when it comes to best films.
I think the italian job misses out because it has some comedy in it.
Never mind eh?
Some things in life are bad,
They can really make you mad.
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble, give a whistle,
And this'll help things turn out for the best.
You'd think they'd be a bit better at it by now.
They're not managing to predict the lottery numbers.
Hell, they weren't even able to predict the sex of my mates baby and that's 50/50.
I saw the show they're talking about and the comments, weren't actually that funny but neither were they offensive.
It's not as if anyone said Japan was dressed like a tart and she was asking for it.
At some point you have to make light of these things, to point out the ridiculousness of it all. A prime example is Blackadder goes Forth, an entire series dedicated to making light an event in which Millions died.
Perhaps we should just stop exporting comedy shows, nobody gets us.
It took me longer to figure out what was meant by advacting, my primary thought was to acting, but second thoughts made me realise it was not. That's why I singled it out, but yes, I should if I'm going to go grammar nazi do a better job. For that reason I will be downvoting my own post.
Tounge is a good one, it was used twice.
and it's pr0n.
Nobody knows and there's no way of finding out.
I like having tarted up stores, it makes it nicer for me to go and look at things to buy off the internet.
Back when I moved into the internet about 18 years ago there weren't really many girls there, not real ones anyway, plenty of the virtuals, the pretenders and the few nerdy ones. As a result I have a kind of "dr. house" mentality that everyone on the internet is lying.
I met quite a few people who I knew online and they were on the whole ordinary people, but I can't say I found it anything other than surreal. Internet persona's don't tend to be exactly like a real persona.
The film sounds intreaguing, but I might end up getting irritated because I'd be thinking he was stupid for taking anything on the internet as gospel.
I don't think I can't be fooled, but I wouldn't emotionally invest myself in any online relationship.
I'll probably wait for the post cinema release, good review anyway.
Is there a wikipedia page for humour?
Perhaps you could look it up.
In the meantime, allow me to explain, the comment you replied to was a pun.
Suspended -> Hanging
Do they watch these films and think "yeah! That's how it should be" completely missing the humour?
oh gods how will I indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis?
an arm and a leg given the people you'll have to deal with.
Wait and see.
Are we talking about a passive wait and see where nobody actually does anything, or the active wait and see which means scientists (who have to be paid) monitor the situation and speculate, experiment and recommend?
Because without the shouty part you end up with the former, with the shouty part you end up with the latter. As I've pointed out, without the shouty part the majority of the populace couldn't give a stuff and these are the people paying taxes, and ultimately they make the decision as to whether anything gets done about an issue or not. And by something being done I mean it being studied, with real (paid) scientists actively doing stuff (like counting bees for instance)
Should we do the same regarding climate change? I think that's been hyped and shouty. Where do you stand on that one?
How do you judge "worth" given that worthiness is a matter of opinion? Popular opinion governs worth (and you could argue vive-versa), if a cause is popular then the shoutiness gets louder.
So has the worthiness of the save the bee campaign become shouty because of popular opinion or has the issue been exaggerated from the start? My guess (and that's all it is) is that it's driven by popular opinion in this case, on account of my bias towards liking bees.
I am also not particularly keen on the resilience of species argument (humans recovering from black death etc.) if that argument was followed every time there was an outbreak of a new virus then there would most likely be very few people around today. (HIV - who cares, we've survived plagues before, we'll do it again.) It may be accurate but it doesn't actually help us evolve as a species. You could equally point to dutch elm disease, or perhaps more appropriately potato blight.
We'll survive, but at what cost? (Should we stand idly by to wait and see?)
We've already manipulated the human population to be significantly greater than would be the case if we ignored plagues, it stands to reason that we need to do the same with the species we depend upon, hence industrialised farming.
Much like global warming and other various subjects which are hyped, people hype them because they are important and without that hype large swathes of the population couldn't give a toss.
So it is done as a social manipulation tool, to draw attention to the fact it's done, to decry it makes the assumption that everyone else on the planet is as clued up and as good at critical thinking as you are. And you're an expert, so how is that going to be true?
Just because something is hyped up to be a bigger issue than it actually is in the eyes of an expert doesn't necessarily mean that the issue should be ignored.
When it comes to a threat.
It's one thing to say "I'm a gonna shoot you" when all you have is a beebee gun at most.
Another thing to say "I'm a gonna shoot you" whilst having access to an actual firearm with real bullets that go through people making lots of blood and such.
One is an empty threat, the other can be considered to be a genuine threat of real physical violence, with a gun.
And guns are bad mmm'kay
because you'd never pick up a virus from warez </sarcasm>
Go open source
"The gang nobbled the revenue in a "complicated" fraud centred on mobile phones, SIM cards, memory and other mobile phone accessories"
That's the one where people are paying me the bribe.
Is that possibly the best tactic for getting rid of the press? By attempting to "punish" England?
Won't that just make the English press hurl more accusations around? Some of the accusations might even be based in fact, I don't think that really matters much to the press though.
Smart for figuring it out, stupid for talking about it.
That's vanity for you.
You take the number of places where there are phosphorous, count them.
Then you take that same number of places and here's the critical part, you "add" the number of places where there is arsenic.
I'm no expert of course, but I reckon and I could be going out on a limb here, but the second number is bigger than the first number.
For my records can anyone let me know what the figure is for "a single-spouse decision"?
I may need to berate my wife over her opinion of what that figure is when it comes to buying shoes.
Or it may afford me greater freedom to expand my NAS.