Mnemnosyne

It's possible to. Are they? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're not. They're going after Microsoft and not Google.

Not that it makes any difference since Edge is just reskinned Chrome now anyway. If it was still it's own thing I'd be rooting for Microsoft, at least up until they start to become bigger, then I'd turn on them.

The funny thing is he might be the one in the right, if we examine with logic.

A mayor probably has no particular skills or abilities to help personally in that sort of situation, and if he was doing his job correctly in the past, then everything in his power to do would already have been done. The appropriate experts are ready. Emergency plans are in place. There's backup plans, and backup plans for the backups, all carefully considered and planned by the best people the mayor could get to do them in the past.

But humans are weird and have stupid ideas, so we want to see the mayor in his office, giving interviews, or even better, at the site of the disaster, helping. Except the most the average mayor is likely to do in an emergency situation is get in the way and be a distraction.

That's the sad thing - your city's mayor may or may not have done a good job, I have no idea, but the average mayor will definitely be attacked if this happens and he doesn't make a show of 'helping'.

It's not implying he can't be bothered, but that the machine can do a better job.

...which may be true, depending on just how bad he is at writing. Like, I was just watching this classic the other day. If this guy writes like some of those people, the machine may infact be better.

That said, for most people it's stupid, and the tech isn't able to do a better job at expressing such things.

Yet.

Thank you, I understand better now. So in theory, if one of the other search engines chose to not have their crawler identify itself, it would be more difficult for them to be blocked.

I'm kind of curious to understand how they're blocking other search engines. I was under the impression that search engines just viewed the same pages we do to search through, and the only way to 'hide' things from them was to not have them publicly available. Is this something that other search engines could choose to circumvent if they decided to?

That first edition version looks like a dog's head with horns and pointy ears to me at least, and that's kinda what I was referring to.

Admittedly the 2nd edition version looks a bit less doglike, but I still see similarities with some breeds.

It's not a mistranslation that caused it, kobolds were both described and illustrated as doglike until 3rd Edition where with no explanation they simply changed it and decided they were lizard like/draconic.

I do think the new version of kobolds is an interesting creature, but truthfully they should've just come up with a new name for this new creature instead of just completely changing the kobold.

Better to acknowledge it in a response. I prefer to do that myself if I'm wrong or something of that nature, post a reply acknowledging instead of trying to cover up that I was ever wrong in the first place.

It irritates me that so many forums and media sites allow you to edit your posts at will. There's one site I go to that I like very much - it has a 5 minute edit window, and after that, your post can no longer be edited. You can't change what you said, pretend you never said things, etc, once you say something it remains. It would be nice if more sites were like that. Or at least, if you edit/delete something, for there to be an option to check the history to see what it used to be, so if you try to delete some comment you made people can still check it. Whether it's informational, or it's because you're trying to hide something you said that you realize was actually super shitty and people are getting angry at you for it, I prefer things to stick.

This is why PS3 is the last PlayStation that I owned, and I didn't even buy it retail.

After they discontinued the backwards compatible model I sought out and bought one secondhand, and swore never again to buy a PlayStation product unless they release one on which I can play all my PlayStation games all the way back to 1.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Not 'to grant them greater control' or even ownership. To secure exclusive right for a limited time. And this only because it was meant to promote science and art.

Using copyright to prevent a work from spreading is a direct perversion of the intent, it is using it in a manner diametrically opposed to what it is supposed to do.

These changes could be applied retroactively; this isn't like creating an ex post facto law and then jailing people for breaking a law that didn't exist at the time of the event.