The difference you noted is not between the games...it is between the module makers and the Game Masters. D&D does not say that you have to defeat the "monsters" to get the experience points, that is just the way most DMs interpret it.
The writers of D&D have been trying for years to get that idea through to players and DMs, but it is easier to DM an encounter where the players fight the monsters than it is to DM one where they negotiate everything.
SO, what they are saying is that they do not want you to be able to protect your information from criminals, because if the Police have a way to break your encryption, than so do the criminals (including terrorists). And, what they are overlooking is that either no one has "unbreakable" encryption (for whatever value of unbreakable they are using), including the government, or the criminals will have access to "unbreakable" encryption, but not law abiding subjects. The end result is that criminals will have greater power.
Actually, you raise a good point. Recently the California Coastal Commission enacted a regulation banning the breeding of orcas at Sea World. The mission of the California Coastal Commission is "To protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the environment of the California coastline". What does Sea World breeding orcas have to do with that mission?
The Commission's justification for this regulation was that no one else was regulating Sea World in this area, so they were free to do so. Notice, they did not point to a law which gave them the authority to regulate Sea World. They just assumed that such regulation was appropriate and, since no other government agency was doing so, enacted a regulation.
This is NOT how our government is supposed to work.
Fortunately we live in a Constitutional democracy, that won't happen. The Constitution overrides the will of the majority,
You mean the way that the Constitution requires that all bills involving revenue originate in the House, so the Senate took a bill that originated in the House, removed everything the House had put in it, replaced it with the Affordable Care Act, and claimed that it could be passed under reconciliation as a revenue bill since it was a bill that originated in the House (even though all that remained of that bill was the number).
I'm sorry, but if they can do that, they can find a way to pass a law legalizing slavery once more.
Search is great....if you remember what that piece of software you installed six months ago for a specific job, and haven't needed since, is called. Of course if all you remember is that it is called something like "blue meany" when it turns out to be named "green unhappy" than having a start menu you can scroll through really helps. And yes, the Apps list allows me to track it down, but it lists so many things I never access except from inside something else that finding anything on it is ridiculously time consuming
Exactly this. This is a state problem which should be addressed at the state level.
If you don't want laws protecting car dealers in YOUR state, vote for state legislators who will fix it. The fact that New Jersey, or California, or Michigan has laws preventing Tesla (or any other car manufacturer) from selling directly to the consumer is a problem for the voters of that particular state. If you don't live in that state, it is none of your business.
You make some good points, but you fail to recognize that he is giving advise to people who are stopped on suspicion of drunk driving, not all of whom are actually drunk.
Except that a short time back, Congress passed a law that made it so that the TPP (as has been the case with many other trade agreements) only needs a simple majority in both Houses of Congress and the President's signature to become law. This is viewed as easier than getting the required 2/3s of the Senate to concur as would be required for a true treaty.
Interestingly enough, this suggests to me that getting rid of this "treaty" is as simple as a law passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President...without any negotiation with anyone. Unlike a treaty which is technically more difficult.
Either the companies will fix this, or the market will. If guys from Fanduel are winning big by playing at Draftkings and vice versa, no one who is not in the know will play.
You mean you would prefer to be ruled by men who got to the top by murdering all of their opposition, or even anyone who said something negative about their plans?
Who was it again that turned Cuba into a testosterone test of who can be meaner and thus a bigger "man?"
Let's see, well it was JFK (Democrat) who first instituted the embargo of Cuba..Oh look than that "conservative" Bill Clinton expanded the economic embargo. What was Obama's party again?
No, the above poster merely pointed out that if your argument against Uber consists of "a law is a law, Period." then you are also arguing against Rosa Parks actions and the actions of others whose actions consisted in breaking the law in ways which are currently considered a good thing.
He in no way said that Uber's actions were equivalent to Rosa Parks, BUT the argument being used (a law is a law) applies equally to Rosa Parks as it does to Uber.
Doesn't matter. A law is a law. Period.
Apropos of nothing, how do you feel about Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus?
I see that a lot of slashdot readers fail at reading comprehension and at basic logic. The above poster is NOT comparing Uber to Rosa Parks. They are pointing out that the argument "A law is a law. Period." applies against the actions of Rosa Parks as well. Or in other words, you have to explain why what Uber is doing is wrong, but what Rosa Parks was doing was not (unless of course, you think that what what Rosa Parks did WAS wrong).
There are others on here who ARE making arguments about why what Uber is doing is wrong (not everyone agrees with those arguments, but they are legitimate viewpoints nonetheless), but this particular argument ("A law is a law") has no merit.
Actually, it is not even a treaty. It is merely a verbal agreement between two heads of state. It doesn't mean anything. It is just a nice soundbite that no one actually believes.
You seem to be missing the same thing the idiots trying to get this in place miss. If this gets implemented, it won't just be the governments with access...and because the people trying to implement this will want to be able to spy on people in government, it will be on government computers. If this gets implemented (and it may already be partially implemented), the world will get very ugly indeed, including for the people proposing it.
Yes, I do know what a Sufi is. Of course, the fact that the father is a Sufi is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the father has acted as a provocateur in attempting on multiple occasions in attempts to magnify various incidents into "America is persecuting Muslims."
I am going to guess from your take on this that you still think that Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot.
Because Ahmed's father is a rather prominent agitator. It is not impossible that the cop had seen pictures of Ahmed with his father at one or more of the events where the father was agitating, or recognized him as his father's son just by looking at him. My father has been dead for over thirty years and people who knew him, but have never met me before, often recognize me as his son to this day.
Well, a little research discovers that the primary adult person doing the manipulating is this boy's father, which suggests that this whole thing may have been a set-up.
Yes, it is not far fetched to expect an actual AU to understand it. However, Cortana is not truly an AI. Additionally, it is far fetched to believe that Cortana, even if it was an AI, would be able to answer the question (unless specifically trained to do so).
You make some good points. However, Medicare costs a fraction of what private insurance costs at least partly because it does not actually PAY to full cost of procedures it covers...to the point that ever increasing numbers of health care providers are refusing to accept Medicare patients. As far as extra staff at hospitals and doctors offices, Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for more of those than private insurance companies.
I will agree that in many ways our funding for healthcare and higher education is the worst of both worlds. We have all of the problems of burdensome regulation and paperwork that serves no useful function that goes with government payment for a service, the burden of payment falling on individuals, AND none of the advantages that come from a free market.
Well, there are two ways this works. First, the University does a search of existing trademarks, find that this one is trademarked and moves on. Second, the University wants to sell rights to use the name chosen to lots of different people selling lots of different things. This latter only works if someone else is not already using this trademark in that area.
That being said, this guy's plan only looks like it works if the University committee is not aware of what they are doing (or wants to use it as an excuse not to go with a particular nickname).
Slashdot Mirror
The difference you noted is not between the games...it is between the module makers and the Game Masters. D&D does not say that you have to defeat the "monsters" to get the experience points, that is just the way most DMs interpret it.
The writers of D&D have been trying for years to get that idea through to players and DMs, but it is easier to DM an encounter where the players fight the monsters than it is to DM one where they negotiate everything.
That is close to what I wanted to post.
Q:Can the cloud be more secure than your own servers?
A:Of course it can
A much more important question is:
Q:Is the cloud more secure than your own servers?
A:That all depends on how hard you are willing to work to make your servers secure.
SO, what they are saying is that they do not want you to be able to protect your information from criminals, because if the Police have a way to break your encryption, than so do the criminals (including terrorists). And, what they are overlooking is that either no one has "unbreakable" encryption (for whatever value of unbreakable they are using), including the government, or the criminals will have access to "unbreakable" encryption, but not law abiding subjects. The end result is that criminals will have greater power.
Actually, you raise a good point. Recently the California Coastal Commission enacted a regulation banning the breeding of orcas at Sea World. The mission of the California Coastal Commission is "To protect, conserve, restore, and enhance the environment of the California coastline". What does Sea World breeding orcas have to do with that mission?
The Commission's justification for this regulation was that no one else was regulating Sea World in this area, so they were free to do so. Notice, they did not point to a law which gave them the authority to regulate Sea World. They just assumed that such regulation was appropriate and, since no other government agency was doing so, enacted a regulation.
This is NOT how our government is supposed to work.
Fortunately we live in a Constitutional democracy, that won't happen. The Constitution overrides the will of the majority,
You mean the way that the Constitution requires that all bills involving revenue originate in the House, so the Senate took a bill that originated in the House, removed everything the House had put in it, replaced it with the Affordable Care Act, and claimed that it could be passed under reconciliation as a revenue bill since it was a bill that originated in the House (even though all that remained of that bill was the number).
I'm sorry, but if they can do that, they can find a way to pass a law legalizing slavery once more.
Search is great....if you remember what that piece of software you installed six months ago for a specific job, and haven't needed since, is called. Of course if all you remember is that it is called something like "blue meany" when it turns out to be named "green unhappy" than having a start menu you can scroll through really helps. And yes, the Apps list allows me to track it down, but it lists so many things I never access except from inside something else that finding anything on it is ridiculously time consuming
Exactly this. This is a state problem which should be addressed at the state level.
If you don't want laws protecting car dealers in YOUR state, vote for state legislators who will fix it. The fact that New Jersey, or California, or Michigan has laws preventing Tesla (or any other car manufacturer) from selling directly to the consumer is a problem for the voters of that particular state. If you don't live in that state, it is none of your business.
Don't make that argument to me. I was merely pointing out that you were not actually addressing the advice being given.
You make some good points, but you fail to recognize that he is giving advise to people who are stopped on suspicion of drunk driving, not all of whom are actually drunk.
Except that a short time back, Congress passed a law that made it so that the TPP (as has been the case with many other trade agreements) only needs a simple majority in both Houses of Congress and the President's signature to become law. This is viewed as easier than getting the required 2/3s of the Senate to concur as would be required for a true treaty.
Interestingly enough, this suggests to me that getting rid of this "treaty" is as simple as a law passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President...without any negotiation with anyone. Unlike a treaty which is technically more difficult.
Either the companies will fix this, or the market will. If guys from Fanduel are winning big by playing at Draftkings and vice versa, no one who is not in the know will play.
You mean you would prefer to be ruled by men who got to the top by murdering all of their opposition, or even anyone who said something negative about their plans?
Who was it again that turned Cuba into a testosterone test of who can be meaner and thus a bigger "man?"
Let's see, well it was JFK (Democrat) who first instituted the embargo of Cuba..Oh look than that "conservative" Bill Clinton expanded the economic embargo. What was Obama's party again?
Well, yes, everyone is making the same salary...of course, Fidel and Raul Castro are both worth millions. I wonder how that happened?
No, the above poster merely pointed out that if your argument against Uber consists of "a law is a law, Period." then you are also arguing against Rosa Parks actions and the actions of others whose actions consisted in breaking the law in ways which are currently considered a good thing.
He in no way said that Uber's actions were equivalent to Rosa Parks, BUT the argument being used (a law is a law) applies equally to Rosa Parks as it does to Uber.
Doesn't matter. A law is a law. Period. Apropos of nothing, how do you feel about Rosa Parks not moving to the back of the bus?
I see that a lot of slashdot readers fail at reading comprehension and at basic logic. The above poster is NOT comparing Uber to Rosa Parks. They are pointing out that the argument "A law is a law. Period." applies against the actions of Rosa Parks as well. Or in other words, you have to explain why what Uber is doing is wrong, but what Rosa Parks was doing was not (unless of course, you think that what what Rosa Parks did WAS wrong).
There are others on here who ARE making arguments about why what Uber is doing is wrong (not everyone agrees with those arguments, but they are legitimate viewpoints nonetheless), but this particular argument ("A law is a law") has no merit.
Actually, it is not even a treaty. It is merely a verbal agreement between two heads of state. It doesn't mean anything. It is just a nice soundbite that no one actually believes.
You seem to be missing the same thing the idiots trying to get this in place miss. If this gets implemented, it won't just be the governments with access...and because the people trying to implement this will want to be able to spy on people in government, it will be on government computers. If this gets implemented (and it may already be partially implemented), the world will get very ugly indeed, including for the people proposing it.
Yes, I do know what a Sufi is. Of course, the fact that the father is a Sufi is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the father has acted as a provocateur in attempting on multiple occasions in attempts to magnify various incidents into "America is persecuting Muslims." I am going to guess from your take on this that you still think that Michael Brown had his hands up when he was shot.
You mean in the same way they "twisted" the Michael Brown story?
Because Ahmed's father is a rather prominent agitator. It is not impossible that the cop had seen pictures of Ahmed with his father at one or more of the events where the father was agitating, or recognized him as his father's son just by looking at him. My father has been dead for over thirty years and people who knew him, but have never met me before, often recognize me as his son to this day.
Well, a little research discovers that the primary adult person doing the manipulating is this boy's father, which suggests that this whole thing may have been a set-up.
Yes, it is not far fetched to expect an actual AU to understand it. However, Cortana is not truly an AI. Additionally, it is far fetched to believe that Cortana, even if it was an AI, would be able to answer the question (unless specifically trained to do so).
You make some good points. However, Medicare costs a fraction of what private insurance costs at least partly because it does not actually PAY to full cost of procedures it covers...to the point that ever increasing numbers of health care providers are refusing to accept Medicare patients. As far as extra staff at hospitals and doctors offices, Medicare and Medicaid are responsible for more of those than private insurance companies.
I will agree that in many ways our funding for healthcare and higher education is the worst of both worlds. We have all of the problems of burdensome regulation and paperwork that serves no useful function that goes with government payment for a service, the burden of payment falling on individuals, AND none of the advantages that come from a free market.
Well, there are two ways this works. First, the University does a search of existing trademarks, find that this one is trademarked and moves on. Second, the University wants to sell rights to use the name chosen to lots of different people selling lots of different things. This latter only works if someone else is not already using this trademark in that area.
That being said, this guy's plan only looks like it works if the University committee is not aware of what they are doing (or wants to use it as an excuse not to go with a particular nickname).