7Z7

I'd be interested to know if a "full copy of the copyright laws" would fit in a standard email payload

That seems even worse tbh. You are of course still downloading their content, but now you're also leaving out any money making possibilities the host site may have had in place. Even less likely to be considered "permitted".

The scarcity is in the "quality" - its ability to move us in new and interesting ways, just like now. A trillion similar things are not very interesting, so quality stands out.

"British accent" "Irish accent" "American accent" "Chinese accent"

It's the money, not the acceptability

>Plastics are aesthetically bad..

In many parts of the ocean we are way past aesthetics.

73% of Deep-Sea Fish Have Ingested Plastic: > https://www.ecowatch.com/plastics-deep-sea-fish-2536726086.h...

Whale Died Of Starvation After Eating 80 Plastic Bags Off Thailand's Coast: > https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2018/06/04/whale-die...

All UK mussels contain plastic and other contaminants, study finds: > https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/mussels-plastic-mi...

Do you mean "often short for China the country"? Because otherwise it does sound pretty weird for you to say "Chinese communist".

>if you tried to say that people's needs have radically changed in that time then I fail to see how.

Their needs have changed, because their expectations have changed. 20 years ago I didn't expect my map to be able to ask my calendar when I had to be at a place, to figure out ahead of time the best route. It's a niche example but I think the point stands.

Its not about being blocked from continuing, it's about having to answer questions (or click away the dialogues) to peruse content.

And the "subscribe to our newsletter" overlay often does block progress without hunting for the often obfuscated "no thanks" link.

Those are both already horrible UXs that are abused in the same way the "subscribe to our newsletter" is. I won't ever do any of those three for 99.9% of websites I visit, and yet 70% are requesting it.

They've become user-hostile ways to give websites a way to force interaction from me that I don't ever want, and if I did I could chose the option in the account preferences (if I cared enough to make one).

Then it looks like it was a mistake in the name registration process, because @Mat is listed in Google's cache going back to mid last year. You shouldn't have been able to register that name.

How recently?

Are you on Android?

Came here to comment exactly this. The expression on the face is expressing all the wrong messages about the service.

You don't have a "European" perspective. You have a wherever-you-are-from perspective, and potentially a whatever-you-choose-to-see one too. I'm from Ireland, we have noisy violent junkies, amongst others less noisy and less violent.

Income is taxed

In some contexts, yes.

iOS has a software back-link when you follow a link or notification out of another app.

And FWIW I (and I presume others) like getting notifications when I'm in other apps.

>I would teach your children the value of not caring what other people think

That's not a great lesson if taken absolutely. Other people can give valuable feedback to social interactions. You should be aware of what people think, and be able to examine it, but not be ruled by it.

I understood it to mean that a boy child would be doubly thrilled getting to do things that his dad does. Though I'm not sure it's as clearly true in my experience (daddy's girl/mammy's boy, and all that).

Be able to make a brain, hopefully means being able to make a better brain - or even, to make our brains better.

>fancy

You don't need this part. Per the article, it is a brand the author knows and has used reliably in the past, and has some knowledge of - you don't need to belittle his choices as fanboyism.

I think you might be. The "in" at the end makes it pretty unambiguous.

>For spies, spooks, government agents etc. I suspect that Face ID would always be a no-no as it is much harder to control the ability of others to eavesdrop.

Actually, and this might be different where you live, but it's my understanding that shops don't really make any profit on cigarettes/alcohol/lottery tickets, and that they are only sold to entice you to buy other things (ie. if they didn't stock them, people would shop elsewhere).

I don't think your comment was designed to criticise Muslims, but I think you did a sloppy job making your point, and equivocated (maybe accidentally) the wrong sets and members.

Charitably, your comment reads that people who call themselves Nazis today are as far removed from (and do not bear the mantle of) the Nazis of WW2, as Muslims are removed from Islamist terrorists.

Again, charitably, that is an appalling comparison. Because it implies the reverse too; that Muslims are as responsible for the crimes of 9/11 as one believes modern Nazis are for bearing the history of the National Socialist movement - which of course they (modern Nazis) are.

More clearly: The perpetrators of 9/11 are only tangentially part of the same group as Muslims in general. You may as well group these NeoNazis with the set "Americans", or "White Men", as their motivations have as little bearing as regular Muslims and the men who brought down WTC.

As before, the better comparison is to ask if non-violent members of ISIS or Al Qaida can be assumed criminals/terrorists, as their violent companions are.

> If you were to apply what you are advocating for fairly, then every Muslims would be arrested in the US.

No. Just no.

Islamists =/= Muslims

The honest comparison would be to ask if anyone who professes to be a member of Al Qaeda or ISIS, is considered a criminal by simple association.

And if they provide "material support or resources" (like organising/publishing/translating, at the lower end of terrorist criminality) they would be so.

>When a muslim plows into a crowd it's a lone wolf and we should jump to conclusions

That is literally the opposite of the actual media narrative associated with Muslims, and is often held out as the difference in coverage between Muslim-related incidents and non-Muslim ones (for want of a better differentiator).

Muslim/brown/whatever attackers are always framed in terms of their religious affiliations, and white attackers are almost always described as "lone wolves".

It beggars belief that you are trying to present that switched, with a straight face.

Have you used a Keurig? Or Nespresso?

It worries me that this is a legitimate question. The chief of the military does not define law.