I'm no gamer, but I would imagine that under the terms of use he said he agreed to when he signed up that Blizzard told him that cheating would get him banned. He decided to go ahead and cheat anyway and as a result got banned.
And you call that banishment robbery? The idiot broke the rules knowing what the punishment was if he got caught. Do you also call it robbery when the judge sentences some fool who got caught robbing the local 7-11 to a some jail time?
Yeah, this having two wireless devices is a huge problem. Like most kids, although I'm an old man, I'm a major bandwidth hog because I have multiple devices.
I simultaneously surf with both hands while at home or while using a public hotspot such as the public library. With my right hand I download files to my laptop while browsing/., and with my left I browse Groklaw on my Droid while downloading music to it. Furthermore, I speed read/. with my left eye and Groklaw with my right at the same time. If I had a third hand I'd simultaneously download and read ebooks on my iPad with my butt so I could use even more bandwidth.
Because I have a special legal status which, thanks to the accident of birth, entitles ME to be recognized as a real person with interests and needs, but not THAT GUY OVER THERE. If we include him in the decision-making process then the resulting decisions might not privilege me so uniquely! Pandemonium!
That's a really stupid argument, and a logical fallacy.
If a person isn't born here there is a process they can follow to have the same rights all other naturalized citizens have. They can choose to become a US citizen, or not. The choice is theirs. If they choose not to become a member of the community of citizens of the US, that's their problem. They are not special that they should have the same rights as all the other people who have followed the law, you know, all those people over the last 200 years who have emigrated here and gone through the process of becoming US citizens, and valued the right to vote enough to become US citizens.
Nice logical fallacy. I said nothing about keeping anyone from voting. All they have to be able to vote is become a citizen. If they don't value being an American citizen enough to do that, then they don't place much value on voting as an American either.
I don't care what race they are, where they come from, what color their skin is, or what language they speak. As long as they comply with laws of the land and follow lawful procedure they can vote. If they don't want to follow the law of the land, then they have no business complaining about not being able to vote.
If you want that right, become a naturalized citizen. Then you can vote. If you place no value on citizenship, then you don't value the right to vote either.
You're talking about local elections, though. Why not let everyone who lives in your town help choose the city council members?
Why not? Because those people who have not bothered to become naturalized citizens have shown they don't value citizenship, so why should they be given the same rights a citizen has? There is a long-standing process set up so that anyone who legally resides in the US can choose to become a citizen with the right to vote, if they want to put forth the effort. If they don't think being able to vote is worth the effort of becoming a citizen, why should they be given the same rights as the citizens? I see no reason why they should, and neither did the founding fathers.
Hell, I live in the US, am considered a right wing troll by many here on/., and I'm pretty close to you on the scale: Economic Left/Right: 2.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56.
That said, the way the viewpoints were stated I could give no honest answer with the available options. In many instances the viewpoints given were logical fallacies. How you are supposed to agree, or disagree, with a logical fallacy I don't know. It's a fallacy so it's not something to agree or disagree with. It's a non-starter because it's a fallacy.
So, he deliberately chooses not to do that which would give him the right to vote. And just how is that discriminatory, or a failure on the part of the US? That's his choice, and he has continually made that same choice for decades.
Your father just doesn't value the right to vote enough to do what it takes to become a citizen. However, I don't see how holding dual citizenship would deny his national heritage. Becoming a US citizen does not destroy or revoke any previous citizenship.
Ummmm.... Women in the early US, 1700's and early 1800's, had the right to vote. This was abolished by the party system when the party in power, for which women weren't voting, created a law making it illegal for women to vote.
IOW's, denying women the vote was not done by our founding fathers.
Presumably we're talking about being a legal citizen, not just a vacationer on a six-week visa. Though... Voting tourism. November would become a high-season.
Ummm.... No. We're not talking about legal citizens. We're talking about people who can't be bothered to become citizens. If a legal resident wants to become a legal citizen of the US, then, yes, they should be given the right to vote. That's valuing being a part of the the community called the United States enough to become a legal part of it, and a natural right you gain upon becoming a legal member of the community.
If you want to vote, become a US citizen. There's a long-established process to gain citizenship in the USA which grants you the right to vote. You don't want to be a citizen? You don't value the right to vote enough to become a citizen of the US? Then why should you be given the right to vote?
I don't know why people feel the need to pretend to be so selfless.
This presumes an awful lot. Is it so unthinkable that other Americans might actually value fairness above their own self-interest, and might not consider the privilege of citizenship to be legitimately fair?
You don't understand fairness. Fairness isn't giving group A something for which there is already an established process to attain, and which process millions of other people in group B have already followed, and which process group A can't be bothered to follow.
If you can't be bothered to follow the process, then you don't really value the end product, which in this case is citizenship and voting rights.
What about the rights of the existing citizens? You know, the people that were either born here, or have become citizens through the process of becoming a legal citizen. What about their rights? How is it fair to give someone who can't be bothered to go through the long-established process of becoming a citizen the same rights as someone who has? It isn't right, and it isn't fair to existing naturalized citizens.
In no nation in the world can you vote without being citizen of that nation. You want voting rights in Mexico? You have to prove you will be bringing something of value to Mexico before you can emigrate. Then you must go through the process of becoming citizen before you can vote. It's the same in every other country in the world too.
There are two sides to this question, and if you're going to be fair you must consider both sides equally. If you're not, then you're not being fair.
Not any more. The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally. It's pure insanity, but that's the progressive agenda, pure insanity.
I've driven plenty of gas powered vehicles that couldn't meet your acceleration specs
Yes, and I don't buy them, either.
That's the point. Your specs have everything to do with acceleration rates and nothing to do with engine type, and yet you make engine type a determining factor in your purchasing plans.
A friend of mine owned a late 80's Mercedes Benz 4 door sedan with a 4 cylinder turbo diesel that would have easily passed your acceleration tests. That car was really fast for its engine displacement. It would do better than 70 mph in the length of a city block, and a couple of seconds faster than your time limit. The same goes for the 80's turbo diesel Misubishi 4 wheel drive pickup old man drove for years.
Engine type has nothing to do with performance any more. The little 4 cylinder turbo diesels I have driven have outperformed gas engines of similar displacement, and gotten better mileage to boot.
I guess I still don't understand your logic. Driving a small car puts you at risk for every drunk/high driver out there, and protecting yourself from them is no different than taking up arms to protect yourself against someone who is going to unjustly do you harm.
Controlling a heavy car is no different than controlling a light car, except for the fact that most heavy cars are still rear wheel drive, and a rear wheel drive car is much easier to control because you can use the power of the engine to maneuver/control the car much more easily than you can with a front wheel drive vehicle. There's a reason all race cars are rear wheel drive.
You just have to learn to drive defensively. You just make sure you know what's happening further down the road so you have extra distance to stop. Most people don't do that, they drive paying attention to what's right in front of them. Depending on your speed you pay attention to what's happening anywhere from from a hundred yards to 1/2 a mile ahead of you.
That said, I drive a small car, but I do it for the gas mileage. I greatly prefer a rear wheel drive car for the handling and performance characteristics. They are much easier to control in emergency situations when you're having to drive "on the edge".
What does this have to do with diesel engines? I've driven plenty of gas powered vehicles that couldn't meet your acceleration specs. And, I've driven diesel powered vehicles that easily meet your acceleration specs.
Your complaint is now about acceleration, not what kind of engine the vehicle has. And, straight line acceleration is only a very small part of stop-and-go driving, which was your original complaint. In all stop-and-go driving situations I've ever been in no one was driving at 60 mph. Everyone was moving at much, much slower speeds and no one needed the kind of acceleration rates you have specified.
I'd rather take the risk of being killed by someone else than the risk of killing someone else. Moreover, I have serious misgivings regarding the morality of the contrary position.
That's a stand I've never seen before. What you're basically saying is that you consider it unethical to protect yourself. I don't get it. Self-protection has always been considered ethical. Why do you consider it unethical?
My experience with higher octane fuels is much different than yours. If I run either of the two gases with higher octane ratings my gas mileage goes up correspondingly. Even + fuel gives me 3-4 mpg greater fuel mileage. At 30mpg on regular and 33 or 34 mpg on + gas I'm getting 10% better mileage and only paying 3% more for the gas at $3.00/gallon which is what I pay here. That's a 7% reduction in fuel costs.
I only buy Standard gas too. No matter what other brand I buy my mileage goes down and my car doesn't idle as smoothly. I've tracked this for about 7 or 8 years now and this has remained consistent over that entire period of time. I've learned it's penny wise and pound foolish to buy the cheapest gas around. .
Wha? Inefficient compared to what? Carburetors? No way, even the most primitive injectors do a better job atomizing fuel than almost any carb. The one and only downside to injectors over carbs is throttle response.
Agreed. Even the old mechanical fuel injection systems back in the early sixties gave increases in power and mileage over carburetors. The fuel injection systems available to day make them look primitive and are very much a part of the greater fuel efficiency ratings that cars get today.
Nah, it's not that difficult to run those high compression ratios with variable valve timing and with all the electronic sensors and controls that are being used today spark timing can be controlled almost instantaneously over a wide range. Who knows, they may also even use something like water injection like we hotrodders did back in the 70's to reduce pinging on high compression engines..
Do you not drive? Or haven't driven in the last 20 or 30 years? Every gas station I pull into has diesel pumps, and lists the price of diesel along with the price of regular and premium on their sign. This hasn't been a problem since diesel pickups became an every day item on the road.
How is a unit of power a misleading gauge of power? Have you considered that power equals torque times angular velocity?
Because a gasoline powered engine will have peak torque and horsepower at a much higher rpm range than a diesel will. That means you can turn the diesel engine a lot slower and still have the muscle to pull hills, accelerate away from a stop light, etc.... A diesel pickup with 300 hp will out-pull a gas engine with the same horsepower every time, and get better fuel mileage while doing it. The 300 hp diesel engine will put out 500+ ft lbs of torque. The gas engine will be lucky to put out 70% of the diesel's torque and will only be able to do that at much higher rpm. Meaning, you will have to shift down to keep the gas engine turning faster and use more fuel at the same time.
From Chevy's own statistics their 6.0 liter gas engine generates 360 hp and 380 ft-lbs of torque. Their 6.6 liter diesel generates 397 hp and 765 ft-lbs of torque. The diesel gets better mileage and can do far more work with all that torque. Just comparing hp ratings the engines appear somewhat equal, but when you add the torque ratings the diesel is far superior. Where you would be shifting down 2 or 3 gears with a gas-powered pickup to pull a heavy load up a steep hill you could pull the same hill with the same load in high gear with the diesel.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm no gamer, but I would imagine that under the terms of use he said he agreed to when he signed up that Blizzard told him that cheating would get him banned. He decided to go ahead and cheat anyway and as a result got banned.
And you call that banishment robbery? The idiot broke the rules knowing what the punishment was if he got caught. Do you also call it robbery when the judge sentences some fool who got caught robbing the local 7-11 to a some jail time?
Yeah, this having two wireless devices is a huge problem. Like most kids, although I'm an old man, I'm a major bandwidth hog because I have multiple devices.
I simultaneously surf with both hands while at home or while using a public hotspot such as the public library. With my right hand I download files to my laptop while browsing /., and with my left I browse Groklaw on my Droid while downloading music to it. Furthermore, I speed read /. with my left eye and Groklaw with my right at the same time. If I had a third hand I'd simultaneously download and read ebooks on my iPad with my butt so I could use even more bandwidth.
Because I have a special legal status which, thanks to the accident of birth, entitles ME to be recognized as a real person with interests and needs, but not THAT GUY OVER THERE. If we include him in the decision-making process then the resulting decisions might not privilege me so uniquely! Pandemonium!
That's a really stupid argument, and a logical fallacy.
If a person isn't born here there is a process they can follow to have the same rights all other naturalized citizens have. They can choose to become a US citizen, or not. The choice is theirs. If they choose not to become a member of the community of citizens of the US, that's their problem. They are not special that they should have the same rights as all the other people who have followed the law, you know, all those people over the last 200 years who have emigrated here and gone through the process of becoming US citizens, and valued the right to vote enough to become US citizens.
Nice logical fallacy. I said nothing about keeping anyone from voting. All they have to be able to vote is become a citizen. If they don't value being an American citizen enough to do that, then they don't place much value on voting as an American either.
I don't care what race they are, where they come from, what color their skin is, or what language they speak. As long as they comply with laws of the land and follow lawful procedure they can vote. If they don't want to follow the law of the land, then they have no business complaining about not being able to vote.
If you want that right, become a naturalized citizen. Then you can vote. If you place no value on citizenship, then you don't value the right to vote either.
You're talking about local elections, though. Why not let everyone who lives in your town help choose the city council members?
Why not? Because those people who have not bothered to become naturalized citizens have shown they don't value citizenship, so why should they be given the same rights a citizen has? There is a long-standing process set up so that anyone who legally resides in the US can choose to become a citizen with the right to vote, if they want to put forth the effort. If they don't think being able to vote is worth the effort of becoming a citizen, why should they be given the same rights as the citizens? I see no reason why they should, and neither did the founding fathers.
Hell, I live in the US, am considered a right wing troll by many here on /., and I'm pretty close to you on the scale: Economic Left/Right: 2.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.56.
That said, the way the viewpoints were stated I could give no honest answer with the available options. In many instances the viewpoints given were logical fallacies. How you are supposed to agree, or disagree, with a logical fallacy I don't know. It's a fallacy so it's not something to agree or disagree with. It's a non-starter because it's a fallacy.
So, he deliberately chooses not to do that which would give him the right to vote. And just how is that discriminatory, or a failure on the part of the US? That's his choice, and he has continually made that same choice for decades.
Your father just doesn't value the right to vote enough to do what it takes to become a citizen. However, I don't see how holding dual citizenship would deny his national heritage. Becoming a US citizen does not destroy or revoke any previous citizenship.
Ummmm.... Women in the early US, 1700's and early 1800's, had the right to vote. This was abolished by the party system when the party in power, for which women weren't voting, created a law making it illegal for women to vote.
IOW's, denying women the vote was not done by our founding fathers.
Presumably we're talking about being a legal citizen, not just a vacationer on a six-week visa. Though... Voting tourism. November would become a high-season.
Ummm.... No. We're not talking about legal citizens. We're talking about people who can't be bothered to become citizens. If a legal resident wants to become a legal citizen of the US, then, yes, they should be given the right to vote. That's valuing being a part of the the community called the United States enough to become a legal part of it, and a natural right you gain upon becoming a legal member of the community.
If you want to vote, become a US citizen. There's a long-established process to gain citizenship in the USA which grants you the right to vote. You don't want to be a citizen? You don't value the right to vote enough to become a citizen of the US? Then why should you be given the right to vote?
I don't know why people feel the need to pretend to be so selfless.
This presumes an awful lot. Is it so unthinkable that other Americans might actually value fairness above their own self-interest, and might not consider the privilege of citizenship to be legitimately fair?
You don't understand fairness. Fairness isn't giving group A something for which there is already an established process to attain, and which process millions of other people in group B have already followed, and which process group A can't be bothered to follow.
If you can't be bothered to follow the process, then you don't really value the end product, which in this case is citizenship and voting rights.
What about the rights of the existing citizens? You know, the people that were either born here, or have become citizens through the process of becoming a legal citizen. What about their rights? How is it fair to give someone who can't be bothered to go through the long-established process of becoming a citizen the same rights as someone who has? It isn't right, and it isn't fair to existing naturalized citizens.
In no nation in the world can you vote without being citizen of that nation. You want voting rights in Mexico? You have to prove you will be bringing something of value to Mexico before you can emigrate. Then you must go through the process of becoming citizen before you can vote. It's the same in every other country in the world too.
There are two sides to this question, and if you're going to be fair you must consider both sides equally. If you're not, then you're not being fair.
Not any more. The progressives are bringing up initiatives in several states to where a person can legally vote even if they are here legally. It's pure insanity, but that's the progressive agenda, pure insanity.
At least we can agree it's a "log".
Yeah, it's one of those logs that's found in the crapper....
I've driven plenty of gas powered vehicles that couldn't meet your acceleration specs
Yes, and I don't buy them, either.
That's the point. Your specs have everything to do with acceleration rates and nothing to do with engine type, and yet you make engine type a determining factor in your purchasing plans.
A friend of mine owned a late 80's Mercedes Benz 4 door sedan with a 4 cylinder turbo diesel that would have easily passed your acceleration tests. That car was really fast for its engine displacement. It would do better than 70 mph in the length of a city block, and a couple of seconds faster than your time limit. The same goes for the 80's turbo diesel Misubishi 4 wheel drive pickup old man drove for years.
Engine type has nothing to do with performance any more. The little 4 cylinder turbo diesels I have driven have outperformed gas engines of similar displacement, and gotten better mileage to boot.
I guess I still don't understand your logic. Driving a small car puts you at risk for every drunk/high driver out there, and protecting yourself from them is no different than taking up arms to protect yourself against someone who is going to unjustly do you harm.
Controlling a heavy car is no different than controlling a light car, except for the fact that most heavy cars are still rear wheel drive, and a rear wheel drive car is much easier to control because you can use the power of the engine to maneuver/control the car much more easily than you can with a front wheel drive vehicle. There's a reason all race cars are rear wheel drive.
You just have to learn to drive defensively. You just make sure you know what's happening further down the road so you have extra distance to stop. Most people don't do that, they drive paying attention to what's right in front of them. Depending on your speed you pay attention to what's happening anywhere from from a hundred yards to 1/2 a mile ahead of you.
That said, I drive a small car, but I do it for the gas mileage. I greatly prefer a rear wheel drive car for the handling and performance characteristics. They are much easier to control in emergency situations when you're having to drive "on the edge".
LOL. I guess I should have put a smiley in there as you obviously missed the joke. I guess my humor is just a little too obtuse.
What does this have to do with diesel engines? I've driven plenty of gas powered vehicles that couldn't meet your acceleration specs. And, I've driven diesel powered vehicles that easily meet your acceleration specs.
Your complaint is now about acceleration, not what kind of engine the vehicle has. And, straight line acceleration is only a very small part of stop-and-go driving, which was your original complaint. In all stop-and-go driving situations I've ever been in no one was driving at 60 mph. Everyone was moving at much, much slower speeds and no one needed the kind of acceleration rates you have specified.
That's a stand I've never seen before. What you're basically saying is that you consider it unethical to protect yourself. I don't get it. Self-protection has always been considered ethical. Why do you consider it unethical?
Well, you could also get drunk, fall off your horse, and break your neck too.
My experience with higher octane fuels is much different than yours. If I run either of the two gases with higher octane ratings my gas mileage goes up correspondingly. Even + fuel gives me 3-4 mpg greater fuel mileage. At 30mpg on regular and 33 or 34 mpg on + gas I'm getting 10% better mileage and only paying 3% more for the gas at $3.00/gallon which is what I pay here. That's a 7% reduction in fuel costs.
I only buy Standard gas too. No matter what other brand I buy my mileage goes down and my car doesn't idle as smoothly. I've tracked this for about 7 or 8 years now and this has remained consistent over that entire period of time. I've learned it's penny wise and pound foolish to buy the cheapest gas around. .
Agreed. Even the old mechanical fuel injection systems back in the early sixties gave increases in power and mileage over carburetors. The fuel injection systems available to day make them look primitive and are very much a part of the greater fuel efficiency ratings that cars get today.
Nah, it's not that difficult to run those high compression ratios with variable valve timing and with all the electronic sensors and controls that are being used today spark timing can be controlled almost instantaneously over a wide range. Who knows, they may also even use something like water injection like we hotrodders did back in the 70's to reduce pinging on high compression engines..
Do you not drive? Or haven't driven in the last 20 or 30 years? Every gas station I pull into has diesel pumps, and lists the price of diesel along with the price of regular and premium on their sign. This hasn't been a problem since diesel pickups became an every day item on the road.
How is a unit of power a misleading gauge of power? Have you considered that power equals torque times angular velocity?
Because a gasoline powered engine will have peak torque and horsepower at a much higher rpm range than a diesel will. That means you can turn the diesel engine a lot slower and still have the muscle to pull hills, accelerate away from a stop light, etc.... A diesel pickup with 300 hp will out-pull a gas engine with the same horsepower every time, and get better fuel mileage while doing it. The 300 hp diesel engine will put out 500+ ft lbs of torque. The gas engine will be lucky to put out 70% of the diesel's torque and will only be able to do that at much higher rpm. Meaning, you will have to shift down to keep the gas engine turning faster and use more fuel at the same time.
From Chevy's own statistics their 6.0 liter gas engine generates 360 hp and 380 ft-lbs of torque. Their 6.6 liter diesel generates 397 hp and 765 ft-lbs of torque. The diesel gets better mileage and can do far more work with all that torque. Just comparing hp ratings the engines appear somewhat equal, but when you add the torque ratings the diesel is far superior. Where you would be shifting down 2 or 3 gears with a gas-powered pickup to pull a heavy load up a steep hill you could pull the same hill with the same load in high gear with the diesel.