We draw the line at informed consent. This has been very consistent, although there are cases where informed consent is less clear-cut (eg. age), but with gay adults it's as clear-cut as with straight adults.
Also, it's very unclear that extending marriage rights in one sphere implies that we're extending it in others. In Canada, the age of marrying rose from age 14 to age 16 while gay marriage was being legalized. It's basically going up through history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_Canada#Previous_1890_law). Of course, if your base assumption is that some number like "18" is the "right" number, maybe that doesn't comfort you.*
In any case, marrying an inanimate object doesn't even make sense. Marriage, in the government sense, is a set of legal rights. Inanimate objects have no rights in and of themselves.
*Odd fact: in Canada, there is a separate age of consent for anal sex, which is 18.
Whether the behaviour is OK is nearly orthogonal to whether it's worse to do it in public.
Making a bunch of sexist jokes among buddies after a bad break-up, for instance, isn't the same as making a bunch of sexist jokes in new employee orientation.
You don't have to send men at all in the first round. This gives at least until the colonist women dub the first generation of male children fuckable where if they're going to be pregnant, it's going to be embryos.
The other thing is, the entire sperm bank doesn't have to be spent in generation 1. With an inbreeding taboo and geneology, you could go several generations before you found yourself backed into a corner.
Including marrying one person of the opposite gender.
Women have the same rights as men, including one vote per penis.
For another example, a paraplegic has the right to practice karate — just not the ability...
I don't think anybody does have the specific right to practice karate, actually. You have a more general right not to be prevented from living your life as you please, subject to provisos that are mainly associated with others' rights to do as they please.
You can put something "in to" a box, and you can take something "out of" a box.
You can get "off of" a bus, and you can get "on to" a bus. I would accept "off" and "off of", and I would accept "on" and "on to". I would not accept "off to" a bus or "on of" a bus. I would generally prefer the shorter version, but there are some sentences I think that the "of" improves. For instance, "Firefly will knock the socks off [of] anybody who watches it!" -- I would strongly prefer the version with "of". Although admittedly there are better ways to phrase that sentence.
In the context of doubled prepositions, "of" and "to" are paired antonyms. I have no satisfying explanation for why "on" and "in" should be together and "off" and "out" should be together, but it seems to work.
The context wasn't "downing their tools", it was "downing their tools and the projection collapsing", with a typo. Note the summary has been edited to fix the typo.
When something that doesn't look like a word is paired with an obviously wrong word, it is totally fair to guess that maybe the entire sentence is fucked up.
(Especially when nobody was necessarily holding tools in the first place)
That dictionary definition is accurate but not precise.
For instance, failing to define an obscure word that does appear in major dictionaries, but is unfamiliar to 99% of the population, does not make you illiterate. Nor does not knowing an unfamiliar idiom.
No, it doesn't matter where you die, although the volunteers are seem to be willing to trade their lifespan for the fame of dying on Mars. It does matter when.
Everything else you say is about risks, but we aren't talking about a risky mission, we're talking about a suicide mission -- essentially 100% risk of death within a very short period of time. It is balanced against no stated benefit other than publicity and bragging rights for being the first. The ISS is the closest thing we have to a long-term space mission and it requires constant resupply.
Compare skydiving. You are almost certain to survive skydiving. In fact, you are almost certain to go through without injury. http://www.uspa.org/AboutSkydi.... The benefit there is entertainment and bragging rights -- so on the benefit side it's similar to a suicide mission to Mars, but the risk side does not come close to being similar. The comparison is laughable.
You talk about growth. How are we growing by sending people on suicide missions? What are they going to do there that a robot couldn't -- noting that a robot might not have the reactivity of a human, but on the other hand, we've had one survive for 10 years vs. a human that we do not expect to sustain nearly so long. Random action is not growth. Learning is growth. If we can learn to make a Mars mission a risk that is comparable to, say, ten thousand consecutive skydiving trips, then there will be much less objection. Even higher risk would be acceptable if somebody could actually elucidate what benefit we get from sending somebody to die on Mars. There might be benefits from sending somebody to LIVE on Mars, and that's a different story.
Well it's a good thing that a space program doesn't require suicide missions. You can even have astronauts with no suicide missions! You just have to send them on non-suicide missions.
(Other threads have gone into the difference between a one-way mission and a suicide mission; I think a non-suicide one-way mission has way fewer detractors)
I don't actually believe that "no astronauts means no space program".
Are you kidding? They aren't going to space all by themselves. If a guy built his own rocket by himself, and chartered his own course to Mars, then maybe you could make your argument that it's unethical to prevent it.
This is like the difference between a guy who wants to play Russian Roulette with his own revolver in his own home (and who has no family etc.), and the guy who wants to do it on live TV with a 3rd-party shooter hired using government funds.
You can still think the latter is okay but don't tell me it's not different, or that it's unethical to oppose being made part of it.
That is an enormous assumption. Even the space station is difficult to manage today, and it is in resupply range and is a very small system that is nearly closed.
There is much less of an issue with a one-way trip to Mars if people who know what they're doing really do put good odds on long-term survival.
Without the UI, an OS is just a command line interface which is itself a UI, albeit not a very useful one for a lot of people.
And without input drivers, an OS is just a machine that plays back prerecorded video.
The question isn't "is the UI important". It is, and Microsoft fucked up, and are finally getting around to fixing it. The question is, is the UI the main feature of the OS?
It is not, generally. It is, however, the most immediately obvious feature.
The only possible other interpretation is 'downing',
What? There's lots of other possible meanings to "downing".
"Decreasing" doesn't make a lot of sense in context either, but it is an obvious counter to "upping" like "upping the ante".
Disparaging is the next thing that comes to mind, which does make some sense in context, yet is not what happened (well, apparently the youtubers were "downing" their headsets, but that seems a bit of a sidebar).
Another is destroying/defeating/damaging/scattering, like "downing the enemy aircraft", which also makes sense in context, but is more brutal that what actually happened.
"Putting down their tools" was about as far down the list of possible definitions I came up with for "downing their tools and the projection collapsing" as "filling their tools with feathers" or "ending a play by touching their tools to the ground, as in football (as opposed to soccer; not actually sure what the sport is called where soccer is referred to as football) ".
Combined with he "projection" typo, it looked just as likely that the sentence was simply mangled at some point.
Where are all the people doing a "BURN THE HEATHENS!" mob mentality? That kind of exaggeration is far from constructive, and frankly I find that misrepresentation ironic and hypocritical in its own right.
And this isn't an irrational bias. The guy placed money to support the continued blocking of marriage from a set of people. A website which, among other things, facilitates people becoming married, takes issue with that and has a gentle message suggesting not using his company's product. There's nary a pitchfork or heathen quote or all caps message to be found.
Did he really give out anywhere near the amount of damage that he and Mozilla are now receiving?
Unclear. As far as I know, both Eich's and OKCupid's actions have been largely ineffective. So maybe it's exactly the same?
Plenty of CEOs are vile, unscrupulous pigs who cheat on their wives and sexually harass female employees, but you won't see this sort of backlash against them because it isn't the current political hot topic.
You do hear it in general terms all the time. In every specific case, it tends to get a response just like yours, where whatever the specific case was just isn't so bad and we're the real monsters for calling him on it.
Me, I haven't used Firefox in years, so this isn't going to make me switch. If I did still use Firefox, I wouldn't have switched over this unless I was going to anyway. I find the idea that Brandon Eich is allowed to put his money where his mouth is but nobody else is to be highly objectionable. He literally started it.
This said, he has posted a big "I'm sorry, here is my action plan for not being a dick" memo, so here's hoping for that to work out.
I'll just point out that Google and Apple cannot possibly have difficulty paying wages to their employees, even if their salaries rose a fair bit and both companies were forced to pay incremental back-salaries to employees current and former and punitive damages. Unless you're imagining that these agreements cut their salaries to a quarter of the "natural" rate or something like that. These aren't companies living on the edge. Their cash reserves alone are measured in billions (in Apple's case, well over a hundred billion).
It's questionable at best whether a company should be allowed to bend the rules if it could not otherwise exist, and I think the better argument is that they should not. But these companies aren't at risk of anything but slightly smaller, but still record-breaking, profits. If anything, you'd think that if wages increased, that would make it harder for incumbent companies to hire, and actually cement the positions of these giant companies further than it is today.
Because most of us don't actually use it daily, or weekly, or monthly. I haven't had a landline in over ten years, including both my work and home phone numbers (my workplace uses VoIP).
I would say a first step is that the requirement be loosened such that the so-called POTS should be sufficient, but not necessary, to meet the requirements. The alternatives that could replace the POTS should not require an unreasonable sacrifice compared to keeping the POTS.
If you can come up with a reason that it's unreasonable in your locality, then good on you. I have absolutely no doubt that there remain good uses of the POTS for some scenarios, probably geographically-constrained, but I don't know them.
We have to step back and all recognize that the Universal Translator does not actually make sense as it is portrayed. Not least because you often hear Klingons talking, and occasionally a bit of Vulcan or something else, but also because it makes things perfectly lip-synced, etc..
So putting that behind us, why do you think that the Universal Translator operates on a word-for-word basis? I assert that it can't work even in English on a word-for-word basis; not even between two extremely well-known languages with lots of time in between. It would have to take groups of words (which are just groups of sounds still) and translate them. Darmok and Jelaad at Tenegrae (however that's spelt) should be perfectly translatable in that context.
The episode would make more sense if they hadn't established instantaneous error-free communication with hithertofore completely uncontacted species at every turn. It seems a stretch that these guys are the only ones that say "where's the beef?" in the future, when we know that humans of today do it all the time, and that Star Trek loves throwing out idiomatic quotes to confuse Data or whatever.
I still like the episode; continuity has never been a strong suit of Star Trek. I'd prefer if it did have continuity, but in the context of the show it wasn't as stupid as some of the crap they pulled.
How are your "traditional marriages" damaged or "destroyed" by what he suggests?
your more vocal advocates have already let it be known that they intent to sue any church that will not "marry" gays
First, he's not my advocate. Second of all, who?
will try to take away the tax status of any church that does not comply
I don't think churches should be tax-exempt in the first place (except to the extent that any other similar non-religious organization would be exempt; eg. if there's tax exemptions for charitable organizations then the charity arm of the church can be tax exempt). So I don't support giving a tax break to churches that are "gay friendly". Who are these people?
Moreover, if you get to paint those extremists as the core of the gay marriage activisim, then you have to take responsibility for the extremists against gay rights. I promise you, you do NOT want to be lumped with those guys.
[government] being forbidden from interfering in religion (which it would be by establishing "gay marriage")
First off, the GP specifically was stepping away from using the word marriage, so saying "establishing 'gay marriage'" is not intellectually honest.
Second of all, how, how is that interfering with your religion? Does it interfere with your religion when we fail to make a law against gay people taking Sundays off work? After all, that comes from the ten commandments, right? Keep holy the sabbath? So clearly anybody trying to take all their Sundays off of work must be perverting the church and destroying traditional Sabbath. Let us never mind that Sabbath used to be sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, and that marriage used to mean a different thing than what you call "traditional" today.
If automation makes us more productive, then there is more to go around.
If there is more to go around, then everybody who today has a job, but tomorrow with automation does not have a job, can be allocated the exact same amount of resources. The surpluses can then go to the people who made automation happen*.
Thus, everybody has won. Those who had jobs that were replaced with robots, now have free time without a loss of resources. Those who still have jobs have more resources than they used to have. Win-win. Everybody should be strictly happier with this system than they were with the old one, since all humans are totally rational, right?
Of course I make that sound easy. It's kind of like the arguments that say that we produce plenty of food for every person on earth, and it's just a distribution problem -- the distribution problem is actually difficult. But I don't think it's the need to pay for these things that needs handwaving.
* This isn't necessarily the exact outcome I desire, but one if many possibilities which happens to demonstrate the point succinctly.
Not really. Deterrence is preventing crime through threat of punishment. The AC you replied to was talking about preventing crime by making it physically impossible (for a time, anyway).
A "Requirement" is a requirement. Does not and never will be the same as a "Feature"
That's just completely wrong. A feature of my car is that only a keyholder can get in and start it, which makes it more difficult to steal than, say, an unlocked bicycle. A requirement of my car is you need a key to get in and start it, which makes it marginally less convenient to use than, say, an unlocked bicycle. Thus, car keys are both a feature and a requirement.
Moreover, a thing can be a feature for one party and a requirement for another. For instance, government forms in my country have the feature that I can fill out any form in English without having to provide a notarized translation, which is an important feature for me because I speak that language best (I could also have done French which is also an option, but I share no other languages with those offered by the government as guaranteed languages). However, that imposes a requirement on the government that all forms must include an English version, and they have to be able to process all forms in English.
A feature of the Ouya is that you can play any game there without paying, albeit possibly in a limited mode. A requirement is that if you develop said game, you have to make available a mode that lets people play without paying.
I would never have known that if not for Fallout 3.
I was so confused playing that. I thought for sure it was some big shopping mall in DC, and I figured it would be like zombie movies with people hold up in the mall, using feral ghouls as zombies.
Slashdot Mirror
We draw the line at informed consent. This has been very consistent, although there are cases where informed consent is less clear-cut (eg. age), but with gay adults it's as clear-cut as with straight adults.
Also, it's very unclear that extending marriage rights in one sphere implies that we're extending it in others. In Canada, the age of marrying rose from age 14 to age 16 while gay marriage was being legalized. It's basically going up through history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_reform_in_Canada#Previous_1890_law). Of course, if your base assumption is that some number like "18" is the "right" number, maybe that doesn't comfort you.*
In any case, marrying an inanimate object doesn't even make sense. Marriage, in the government sense, is a set of legal rights. Inanimate objects have no rights in and of themselves.
*Odd fact: in Canada, there is a separate age of consent for anal sex, which is 18.
Whether the behaviour is OK is nearly orthogonal to whether it's worse to do it in public.
Making a bunch of sexist jokes among buddies after a bad break-up, for instance, isn't the same as making a bunch of sexist jokes in new employee orientation.
You don't have to send men at all in the first round. This gives at least until the colonist women dub the first generation of male children fuckable where if they're going to be pregnant, it's going to be embryos.
The other thing is, the entire sperm bank doesn't have to be spent in generation 1. With an inbreeding taboo and geneology, you could go several generations before you found yourself backed into a corner.
Including marrying one person of the opposite gender.
Women have the same rights as men, including one vote per penis.
For another example, a paraplegic has the right to practice karate — just not the ability...
I don't think anybody does have the specific right to practice karate, actually. You have a more general right not to be prevented from living your life as you please, subject to provisos that are mainly associated with others' rights to do as they please.
Yes, it is a reasonable and measured response.
After all, you're calling people twits over far less.
I disagree with the "off of" logic.
You can put something "in to" a box, and you can take something "out of" a box.
You can get "off of" a bus, and you can get "on to" a bus. I would accept "off" and "off of", and I would accept "on" and "on to". I would not accept "off to" a bus or "on of" a bus. I would generally prefer the shorter version, but there are some sentences I think that the "of" improves. For instance, "Firefly will knock the socks off [of] anybody who watches it!" -- I would strongly prefer the version with "of". Although admittedly there are better ways to phrase that sentence.
In the context of doubled prepositions, "of" and "to" are paired antonyms. I have no satisfying explanation for why "on" and "in" should be together and "off" and "out" should be together, but it seems to work.
The context wasn't "downing their tools", it was "downing their tools and the projection collapsing", with a typo. Note the summary has been edited to fix the typo.
When something that doesn't look like a word is paired with an obviously wrong word, it is totally fair to guess that maybe the entire sentence is fucked up.
(Especially when nobody was necessarily holding tools in the first place)
That dictionary definition is accurate but not precise.
For instance, failing to define an obscure word that does appear in major dictionaries, but is unfamiliar to 99% of the population, does not make you illiterate. Nor does not knowing an unfamiliar idiom.
No, it doesn't matter where you die, although the volunteers are seem to be willing to trade their lifespan for the fame of dying on Mars. It does matter when.
Everything else you say is about risks, but we aren't talking about a risky mission, we're talking about a suicide mission -- essentially 100% risk of death within a very short period of time. It is balanced against no stated benefit other than publicity and bragging rights for being the first. The ISS is the closest thing we have to a long-term space mission and it requires constant resupply.
Compare skydiving. You are almost certain to survive skydiving. In fact, you are almost certain to go through without injury. http://www.uspa.org/AboutSkydi.... The benefit there is entertainment and bragging rights -- so on the benefit side it's similar to a suicide mission to Mars, but the risk side does not come close to being similar. The comparison is laughable.
You talk about growth. How are we growing by sending people on suicide missions? What are they going to do there that a robot couldn't -- noting that a robot might not have the reactivity of a human, but on the other hand, we've had one survive for 10 years vs. a human that we do not expect to sustain nearly so long. Random action is not growth. Learning is growth. If we can learn to make a Mars mission a risk that is comparable to, say, ten thousand consecutive skydiving trips, then there will be much less objection. Even higher risk would be acceptable if somebody could actually elucidate what benefit we get from sending somebody to die on Mars. There might be benefits from sending somebody to LIVE on Mars, and that's a different story.
Well it's a good thing that a space program doesn't require suicide missions. You can even have astronauts with no suicide missions! You just have to send them on non-suicide missions.
(Other threads have gone into the difference between a one-way mission and a suicide mission; I think a non-suicide one-way mission has way fewer detractors)
I don't actually believe that "no astronauts means no space program".
Are you kidding? They aren't going to space all by themselves. If a guy built his own rocket by himself, and chartered his own course to Mars, then maybe you could make your argument that it's unethical to prevent it.
This is like the difference between a guy who wants to play Russian Roulette with his own revolver in his own home (and who has no family etc.), and the guy who wants to do it on live TV with a 3rd-party shooter hired using government funds.
You can still think the latter is okay but don't tell me it's not different, or that it's unethical to oppose being made part of it.
That is an enormous assumption. Even the space station is difficult to manage today, and it is in resupply range and is a very small system that is nearly closed.
There is much less of an issue with a one-way trip to Mars if people who know what they're doing really do put good odds on long-term survival.
Without the UI, an OS is just a command line interface which is itself a UI, albeit not a very useful one for a lot of people.
And without input drivers, an OS is just a machine that plays back prerecorded video.
The question isn't "is the UI important". It is, and Microsoft fucked up, and are finally getting around to fixing it. The question is, is the UI the main feature of the OS?
It is not, generally. It is, however, the most immediately obvious feature.
The only possible other interpretation is 'downing',
What? There's lots of other possible meanings to "downing".
"Decreasing" doesn't make a lot of sense in context either, but it is an obvious counter to "upping" like "upping the ante".
Disparaging is the next thing that comes to mind, which does make some sense in context, yet is not what happened (well, apparently the youtubers were "downing" their headsets, but that seems a bit of a sidebar).
Another is destroying/defeating/damaging/scattering, like "downing the enemy aircraft", which also makes sense in context, but is more brutal that what actually happened.
"Putting down their tools" was about as far down the list of possible definitions I came up with for "downing their tools and the projection collapsing" as "filling their tools with feathers" or "ending a play by touching their tools to the ground, as in football (as opposed to soccer; not actually sure what the sport is called where soccer is referred to as football) ".
Combined with he "projection" typo, it looked just as likely that the sentence was simply mangled at some point.
Where are all the people doing a "BURN THE HEATHENS!" mob mentality? That kind of exaggeration is far from constructive, and frankly I find that misrepresentation ironic and hypocritical in its own right.
And this isn't an irrational bias. The guy placed money to support the continued blocking of marriage from a set of people. A website which, among other things, facilitates people becoming married, takes issue with that and has a gentle message suggesting not using his company's product. There's nary a pitchfork or heathen quote or all caps message to be found.
Did he really give out anywhere near the amount of damage that he and Mozilla are now receiving?
Unclear. As far as I know, both Eich's and OKCupid's actions have been largely ineffective. So maybe it's exactly the same?
Plenty of CEOs are vile, unscrupulous pigs who cheat on their wives and sexually harass female employees, but you won't see this sort of backlash against them because it isn't the current political hot topic.
You do hear it in general terms all the time. In every specific case, it tends to get a response just like yours, where whatever the specific case was just isn't so bad and we're the real monsters for calling him on it.
Me, I haven't used Firefox in years, so this isn't going to make me switch. If I did still use Firefox, I wouldn't have switched over this unless I was going to anyway. I find the idea that Brandon Eich is allowed to put his money where his mouth is but nobody else is to be highly objectionable. He literally started it.
This said, he has posted a big "I'm sorry, here is my action plan for not being a dick" memo, so here's hoping for that to work out.
Not sure if you're serious...
I'll just point out that Google and Apple cannot possibly have difficulty paying wages to their employees, even if their salaries rose a fair bit and both companies were forced to pay incremental back-salaries to employees current and former and punitive damages. Unless you're imagining that these agreements cut their salaries to a quarter of the "natural" rate or something like that. These aren't companies living on the edge. Their cash reserves alone are measured in billions (in Apple's case, well over a hundred billion).
It's questionable at best whether a company should be allowed to bend the rules if it could not otherwise exist, and I think the better argument is that they should not. But these companies aren't at risk of anything but slightly smaller, but still record-breaking, profits. If anything, you'd think that if wages increased, that would make it harder for incumbent companies to hire, and actually cement the positions of these giant companies further than it is today.
Because most of us don't actually use it daily, or weekly, or monthly. I haven't had a landline in over ten years, including both my work and home phone numbers (my workplace uses VoIP).
I would say a first step is that the requirement be loosened such that the so-called POTS should be sufficient, but not necessary, to meet the requirements. The alternatives that could replace the POTS should not require an unreasonable sacrifice compared to keeping the POTS.
If you can come up with a reason that it's unreasonable in your locality, then good on you. I have absolutely no doubt that there remain good uses of the POTS for some scenarios, probably geographically-constrained, but I don't know them.
We have to step back and all recognize that the Universal Translator does not actually make sense as it is portrayed. Not least because you often hear Klingons talking, and occasionally a bit of Vulcan or something else, but also because it makes things perfectly lip-synced, etc..
So putting that behind us, why do you think that the Universal Translator operates on a word-for-word basis? I assert that it can't work even in English on a word-for-word basis; not even between two extremely well-known languages with lots of time in between. It would have to take groups of words (which are just groups of sounds still) and translate them. Darmok and Jelaad at Tenegrae (however that's spelt) should be perfectly translatable in that context.
The episode would make more sense if they hadn't established instantaneous error-free communication with hithertofore completely uncontacted species at every turn. It seems a stretch that these guys are the only ones that say "where's the beef?" in the future, when we know that humans of today do it all the time, and that Star Trek loves throwing out idiomatic quotes to confuse Data or whatever.
I still like the episode; continuity has never been a strong suit of Star Trek. I'd prefer if it did have continuity, but in the context of the show it wasn't as stupid as some of the crap they pulled.
How are your "traditional marriages" damaged or "destroyed" by what he suggests?
your more vocal advocates have already let it be known that they intent to sue any church that will not "marry" gays
First, he's not my advocate. Second of all, who?
will try to take away the tax status of any church that does not comply
I don't think churches should be tax-exempt in the first place (except to the extent that any other similar non-religious organization would be exempt; eg. if there's tax exemptions for charitable organizations then the charity arm of the church can be tax exempt). So I don't support giving a tax break to churches that are "gay friendly". Who are these people?
Moreover, if you get to paint those extremists as the core of the gay marriage activisim, then you have to take responsibility for the extremists against gay rights. I promise you, you do NOT want to be lumped with those guys.
[government] being forbidden from interfering in religion (which it would be by establishing "gay marriage")
First off, the GP specifically was stepping away from using the word marriage, so saying "establishing 'gay marriage'" is not intellectually honest.
Second of all, how, how is that interfering with your religion? Does it interfere with your religion when we fail to make a law against gay people taking Sundays off work? After all, that comes from the ten commandments, right? Keep holy the sabbath? So clearly anybody trying to take all their Sundays off of work must be perverting the church and destroying traditional Sabbath. Let us never mind that Sabbath used to be sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, and that marriage used to mean a different thing than what you call "traditional" today.
If automation makes us more productive, then there is more to go around.
If there is more to go around, then everybody who today has a job, but tomorrow with automation does not have a job, can be allocated the exact same amount of resources. The surpluses can then go to the people who made automation happen*.
Thus, everybody has won. Those who had jobs that were replaced with robots, now have free time without a loss of resources. Those who still have jobs have more resources than they used to have. Win-win. Everybody should be strictly happier with this system than they were with the old one, since all humans are totally rational, right?
Of course I make that sound easy. It's kind of like the arguments that say that we produce plenty of food for every person on earth, and it's just a distribution problem -- the distribution problem is actually difficult. But I don't think it's the need to pay for these things that needs handwaving.
* This isn't necessarily the exact outcome I desire, but one if many possibilities which happens to demonstrate the point succinctly.
You might be surprised at the number of people who find that an unpleasant experience compared to doing it themselves.
Not really. Deterrence is preventing crime through threat of punishment. The AC you replied to was talking about preventing crime by making it physically impossible (for a time, anyway).
A "Requirement" is a requirement. Does not and never will be the same as a "Feature"
That's just completely wrong. A feature of my car is that only a keyholder can get in and start it, which makes it more difficult to steal than, say, an unlocked bicycle. A requirement of my car is you need a key to get in and start it, which makes it marginally less convenient to use than, say, an unlocked bicycle. Thus, car keys are both a feature and a requirement.
Moreover, a thing can be a feature for one party and a requirement for another. For instance, government forms in my country have the feature that I can fill out any form in English without having to provide a notarized translation, which is an important feature for me because I speak that language best (I could also have done French which is also an option, but I share no other languages with those offered by the government as guaranteed languages). However, that imposes a requirement on the government that all forms must include an English version, and they have to be able to process all forms in English.
A feature of the Ouya is that you can play any game there without paying, albeit possibly in a limited mode. A requirement is that if you develop said game, you have to make available a mode that lets people play without paying.
I don't understand. It what sense is this like being killed off?
I would never have known that if not for Fallout 3.
I was so confused playing that. I thought for sure it was some big shopping mall in DC, and I figured it would be like zombie movies with people hold up in the mall, using feral ghouls as zombies.
(I am not from the US)