Re: Tell me...
Except for the last one, those where covered by the article. You did read the article before commenting, right?
1937 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Oct 2008
total agreement. I thought someone had deleted the CSS.
Ditch all the random pictures in the middle of the article list
set the size and position of article headlines to be easily scanable with the eyes.
LOSE THE OBNOXIOUS POPUP MENU
No story should take up half the screen, I don't care how good/bad your cromebook printing was
Honestly, we could probably do without the righthand menu.
for the love of all that is holy, make it scale dynamically to width.
Would like the contrast between clicked and non-clicked articles to be back to normal.
"Actually it makes sense. How many people do you know who'd willing act like your typical troll if they didn't have anonymity? The tactic works. Case in point: google Curtis Woodhouse Twitter Troll."
Except that it undermines everything TOR is about. They might as well close up shop and go home.
"Oh, I don't know. Maybe they could listen to the radio or watch TV or buy a fucking newspaper.
How do you think?"
Why would I do that? It's 2014, almost 2015, I can have a collection of à la carte news at my disposal for free, covering multiple perspectives on an event.
You can wade through a two-hand tall stack of periodicals every day if you like. I'm happy having google do it and collate it for me. If some pissant publisher doesn't want google showing their headlines, that's fine, I'll just not read them.
I'm not convinced that the offending parts of Title II wouldn't apply. Once we say the internet is covered under Title 2, I would expect all aspects of Title II to come into force, not just the ones that make us feel warm and fuzzy.
I've yet to see a compelling legal argument that says why all of Title II wouldn't apply without gutting and rewriting it. You may think it's nonsensical, but a nonsensical law is still law and courts will try to enforce them as best they can (rather then trying to just "unwrite" something that's been on the books that long).
I'm suspecting you're a fanboy trying to discredit legitimate issues.
My email is now FUBAR. 2/3s of the time I get a never-ending bar and a message telling me it's retrieving my messages, along with a complete inability to see my calendar.
My Battery life has been halved. I'm afraid to spend even a day anywhere that I don't have a charger. I have no idea what I'm going to do when I go to my sister's for Christmas. I'm really hoping it's fixed soon.
This all worked just fine on Kitkat.
I looked up the political leanings of the Ft. Lauderdale commission. There is only 1 Republican on it, and that's the same guy (Roman Catholic) who tipped the balance in favor of a resolution in support of gay marriage.
You might want to reconsider some assumptions.
source: http://tinyurl.com/llnb8ku
"In whose opinion is Google's opinion wrong, and why should we believe them?"
Think about that question a little more. When we ask Google a question (where can I sign up for an email account?) we want Google's opinion. If we didn't want Google's opinion we would ask Bing! So when we ask Google this question, would you expect them to say "gmail sucks"? Of course not, they think gmail is fantastic, and that's a legitimate opinion.
Some agree. some don't, but I would only be shocked if Gmail DIDN'T rank at #1.
You don't have to have been a facebook user to have had your information analyzed though.
I do not, nor have I ever used facebook. someone takes a picture which I am in, they tag my name in the picture. That image is not able to be cross-referenced with anything anyone has said about me in facebook's DBs. That's not even taken into account if they where to choose to sell it, where it can be cross-referenced with someone else's DBs.
You shouldn't have to actually be a FB user to get in on this.
Possibly because he's a Russian author and the Russians have laws about "homosexual propaganda."
(as much as I, or maybe even Sergei Lukyanenko may dislike such laws (I don't really know his sexual politics) dislike such laws, they exist (In fact, not having read the book, that is stands out may be considered a subtle commentary on this situation).
Last I looked (just now) they are still stupid-priced. I haven't seen any serious marketing for them (honestly, until I looked I thought it was still invite-only). Combine with the fact that it makes the most anti-fashion statement ever (I mean really, it doesn't take a genius to make the boom cover the entire front so you don't look like a complete doofus), only a handful (okay, maybe it's some pretty large hands) would ever sell.
Without any kind of promise of a userbase, of course developers are going to not waste time on it. I know people think writing code is all about heart, but honestly, most developers still have families to feed.
How many places can I actually get google fibre in? It's not "9 metro areas," it's 3. Those 9 may or may not happen for reasons Google may or may not be able to control. I stand by my statement that it's only available in 3.
But let's forget that right now, even IF we give them the nine, it's still COMPLETELY USELESS if you are not in one of those 9 cities.
Chicago: Nope
New York: Nada
Miami: None
Las Vegas: Zip
New Orleans: Ziltch
Those are all major metro areas, Google isn't even talking about any of them, let alone those who aren't in a metro area. Even if we assume that everyone Google is in talks with becomes a completed roll-out RIGHT NOW (and I think everyone can agree that's... unrealistically optimistic), it's still such a breathtakingly small percentage of the US that it's not really worth talking about.
"Lets just fine the USA and USA companies for breaking OUR laws here."
Hahahahaha! Oh wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder. Bwahahahahahahaha!
You can implement whatever fines you want, and the US will just ignore them, just like the EU member nations will ignore fines the US where to issue against them, and don't get me started on the fines PRK would come up with, if they could get away with it.