A Wired blog article says "several sources" have confirmed everyone not in charge of running the game services will be laid off. It doesn't sound like they're just making that up, nothing in the forum post mentions mid-june as a turning point of any kind, for example.
I was thinking about just that on my way to get some groceries, and I kind of concluded that states would have the monopoly in spaceflight if space became militarized.
Why? Like you seem to have concluded, armed conflict is much cheaper on the ground. However, states are much less likely to tolerate unsanctioned hostilities on the ground, especially on their ground, than up in space. On the other hand, if any conflicts did carry up into space, I don't think it would take too long for states to simply put an end to private launches.
Seriously, the concept of warfare in space, on the moon, anywhere off earth basically is just so costly and risky I don't see it happening any time soon. Things go wrong easily enough on space missions without malevolent intent, if competing parties start shooting each other up on intention "up there", I think none of them are likely to survive.
There's something to the idea of increasing choice, but I don't think the biggest barrier to free mobility for most people is finding a better place to live - it's having to uproot your entire life to move elsewhere. The older you get, the harder it gets to just take off and leave.
Then again, maybe societies designed to be in constant flux would be easier to leave. It depends on how much your life is attached to the physical location of where you live, and the people who share it with you. The latter is where it gets sticky.
A gay uncle could be useful to the children of a heterosexual brother, since he wouldn't devote energy to raising his own kids. Apparently, the second-born son of a woman is noticeably more likely to be homosexual than the first-born, the third-born yet more likely etc. This would suggest, though, that the "gay gene", if you must call it that, wouldn't necessarely be solely -or at all- in the homosexual person, but rather in the mother, in the form of a mechanism that increases the likelihood of homosexuality.
As for it being a matter of choice in adulthood, I'd really like to see some sources for that claim. I'm strictly het, to the point that the thought of homosexual sex is not repulsive to me. I feel only utter indifference about the idea. I don't see any way to change that, but then again, I don't have any interest in doing so, either.
"I detect more than one person in the immediate vicinity. Please enter your credit card details to enable Public Performance mode. Alternatively, you may wish to wait approximately 20 minutes, at which point I estimate the audience to be 1 or 0, and no payment will be necessary."
20 minutes later:
"It has been a pleasure serving you!"
For me, it doesn't work in firefox, either - I can't get past the 2nd image in the gallery. This isn't the first popsci.com gallery that does that, either.
If it's okay to ignore someone's rights because he's a pedophile, then it's also okay to ignore someone's rights because that someone happens to be you A big part of the issue is that the rights being infringed upon are the rights of people suspected of being [pedophiles/terrorists/unsavoury types]. When you ignore rights to gather information on suspects, you inevitably ignore the rights of innocent people. I don't see any way around that.
Not the point - it seems whenever someone asks "how do I 'X'" here, a significant portion of the answers amount to "just don't". That's not helpful, a smart person won't ask for help doing something difficult or potentially dangerous if they have the option of not doing it. Clearly the original poster here is aware there are security issues with public terminals - otherwise they wouldn't be asking how to securely use them.
Now, in this case, there probably is no way to be sure of security if you're paranoid enough to suspect keyloggers. Being snide about it is still unwarranted.
It seems to me that when an ISP states they do not throttle traffic and secretly do so anyway, they are giving their customers a false representation of the product they sell. Probably their EULA gives them the right to throttle traffic, but does it give them the right to lie about it?
Well duh, but sometimes you do need to access information from an untrusted terminal, and in such cases being able to do so securely is important. Hence the question, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
High-temperature female displays well-hydrated feline! Amazing pseudoadults with brobdignagian dorsal features! Well-matched pairs engaging in close contact!
http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/05/turner-shuts-do.html
A Wired blog article says "several sources" have confirmed everyone not in charge of running the game services will be laid off. It doesn't sound like they're just making that up, nothing in the forum post mentions mid-june as a turning point of any kind, for example.
More like 70% - about 25% will pester and insult the 5% online until they get it to work.
I was thinking about just that on my way to get some groceries, and I kind of concluded that states would have the monopoly in spaceflight if space became militarized.
Why? Like you seem to have concluded, armed conflict is much cheaper on the ground. However, states are much less likely to tolerate unsanctioned hostilities on the ground, especially on their ground, than up in space. On the other hand, if any conflicts did carry up into space, I don't think it would take too long for states to simply put an end to private launches.
Seriously, the concept of warfare in space, on the moon, anywhere off earth basically is just so costly and risky I don't see it happening any time soon. Things go wrong easily enough on space missions without malevolent intent, if competing parties start shooting each other up on intention "up there", I think none of them are likely to survive.
So basically, give up or give up?
I think not.
There's something to the idea of increasing choice, but I don't think the biggest barrier to free mobility for most people is finding a better place to live - it's having to uproot your entire life to move elsewhere. The older you get, the harder it gets to just take off and leave.
Then again, maybe societies designed to be in constant flux would be easier to leave. It depends on how much your life is attached to the physical location of where you live, and the people who share it with you. The latter is where it gets sticky.
What if you find the whole concept of nations with millions of inhabitants ridiculous? How do you fix that without resorting to escapism?
I have no moral objection to porn on youtube, but holy hell would the wave of flesh ever ruin the site even further.
A gay uncle could be useful to the children of a heterosexual brother, since he wouldn't devote energy to raising his own kids. Apparently, the second-born son of a woman is noticeably more likely to be homosexual than the first-born, the third-born yet more likely etc. This would suggest, though, that the "gay gene", if you must call it that, wouldn't necessarely be solely -or at all- in the homosexual person, but rather in the mother, in the form of a mechanism that increases the likelihood of homosexuality.
As for it being a matter of choice in adulthood, I'd really like to see some sources for that claim. I'm strictly het, to the point that the thought of homosexual sex is not repulsive to me. I feel only utter indifference about the idea. I don't see any way to change that, but then again, I don't have any interest in doing so, either.
Thanks, now we know why you're not work in in China. Obviously some people, such as the guy the article writes about, have different priorities.
Sadly, sexual orientation is not, to the best of my knowledge, something one can alter at will.
"I detect more than one person in the immediate vicinity. Please enter your credit card details to enable Public Performance mode. Alternatively, you may wish to wait approximately 20 minutes, at which point I estimate the audience to be 1 or 0, and no payment will be necessary."
20 minutes later:
"It has been a pleasure serving you!"
For me, it doesn't work in firefox, either - I can't get past the 2nd image in the gallery. This isn't the first popsci.com gallery that does that, either.
One might, of course, ask whether or not the statistics the chinese government gives out about their prison population are likely to be accurate.
Maybe they'd prefer to be known as an out-there weird cult?
How much money did you save, compared to buying an equivalent mac system? I take it you feel it was enough to be worth the trouble?
I'd guess still trying to make games with the same old shoot-and-run formula could be considered a misstep. I know I found the game boring.
The first link is, I believe, wrong. The debate with Doroshow on statutory damages is here: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/05/transcript-of-march-28th-fordham-law_02.html How is it that no-one seems to have noticed there was no debate with Doroshow in the linked article?
But how is anyone supposed to set up a lucrative, patent-protected energy monopoly/cartel with all that diversity?
I believe the gp's ideas for socialized health care were specifically meant as ways to "deal with it". Or maybe you meant to say "give up"?
Not the point - it seems whenever someone asks "how do I 'X'" here, a significant portion of the answers amount to "just don't". That's not helpful, a smart person won't ask for help doing something difficult or potentially dangerous if they have the option of not doing it. Clearly the original poster here is aware there are security issues with public terminals - otherwise they wouldn't be asking how to securely use them.
Now, in this case, there probably is no way to be sure of security if you're paranoid enough to suspect keyloggers. Being snide about it is still unwarranted.
It seems to me that when an ISP states they do not throttle traffic and secretly do so anyway, they are giving their customers a false representation of the product they sell. Probably their EULA gives them the right to throttle traffic, but does it give them the right to lie about it?
Well duh, but sometimes you do need to access information from an untrusted terminal, and in such cases being able to do so securely is important. Hence the question, I guess.