Maybe not. Since they didn't give the judge time to rule on it there's no legal precedent set and they can bring the same suit against someone else tomorrow if they so choose. They'll probably keep doing that too, until everyone's either paid settlement money or learned that they don't have to.
I'm pretty sure there was a time back when things weren't released until all or most of the known bugs were dealt with. It was a while ago, so it's possible I just confabulated the memory. Back when if you bought something you got a thing and not just a limited license to access the current state of whatever it was you thought you had bought.
While I can't make any judgments on the relative combat-efficacy of men and women based solely on gender, but it's a well documented fact that game devs do have sexist attitudes towards female characters. Back when I used to play FPS it was almost universally understood that female avatars were smaller targets and moved more quickly. Generally female characters have less realistic proportions (and far more polygons) than their male counterparts. Not that I'm complaining, but I think it's silly to take for granted that characters who are represented as being a fraction as massive will be equally as strong. True their backs and shoulders should be epic from the degree of voluptuosity portrayed, but those biceps and triceps would probably leave a little to be desired.
The problem with that statement is these people's ignorance is causing repercussions for everybody. If some poor soul can't afford six bucks a pop for V1@GR@ and, against all logic, turns to an unsolicited email for help, that's all profit for the spammer and significant profit for the drug shipper. What incentive does this give either of them to use more legitimate means of business? So, they continue to spam, or spam more, and we suffer. Oh, some guy got a counterfeit erectile-dysfunction medication boo-hoo. The rest of us end up having to deal with the continuous deleterious effects of spam. Maybe you can hide behind a decent spam filter running an up-to-date GNU OS and think it doesn't effect you, but you know the truth: unintentional DoS from the sheer volume of spam out there, compromised systems making headaches for IT personnel the world over, and the sheer irritation when one or several dozen cleverly-crafted ads might make it through your filter. It's not worth it. Patronage of spamming institutions should be a crime.
Personally, I think the phone makes me far less effective than an IM ever could and cube-visits are even worse. IMs are the one method of bothering me who's obtrusiveness is under my control. If I choose to I can turn off the pop-up feature, or even do some work while I contemplate a reply. When the company-issued monstrosity on my desk shatters the [comparable] workplace calm with the default ringer at full volume there's no chance of me getting anything done for the next few minutes.That's going to tie up a hand to hold the phone and a good portion of the part of my brain that does stuff. If I get a cubicle visit it's even worse because it's downright rude to even try to do something other than what you're discussing while there's another human being in your cube.
Productivity and stupidity are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Plenty of moderately successful individuals are in the position they are now because they lack the excess brainpower to waste on ethics, logic, and other considerations that might hinder their productivity. eg: I'm sure many of us could churn out more code if we weren't smart enough to get bored.
There already was/is arms-race between tough people and firearm manufacturers. That's one of the reasons we have 45acp and 44magnum rounds. It's not much of a, "race" though seeing as firearms can evolve in minutes and hours while people take several decades.
Well, you used, " is" which would imply that you believe they are one, inviolate whole. I submit that the holy spirit inspired you to make this typo to demonstrate his subtle hand. Alternatively, "Why not?".
I was posting stochastically. I don't consider a minivan to be any, "better" than an SUV based solely on its automotive class. I do believe that a minivan is usually a car based vehicle, often of unibody construction, for moving medium to large amounts of people or stuff. They're not necessarily build for speed or efficiency, just capacity. The SUV, on the other hand is, speaking generally, well, just that. You take the capacities of a utility vehicle, like a pickup, and amalgamate it with the performance of a sportscar. So you get a truck-based vehicle with the biggest engine you can shoehorn in there.
What I was lamenting in my post was that There has been a steady trend over the past twenty years or so of SUVs getting bigger and more car-like. So instead of a utility vehicle that can handle itself on the street you end up with what is essentially a hot-rodded minivan (car-like kiddie-hauler). I don't think many people could make a convincing case for driving a car that's six-thousand pounds, over six feet tall, and has a three-four-hundred-plus horsepower as a personal transport. I know that isn't all SUVs, but, from what I see around me, it's where the market seems to be headed.
Wow, an expedition going about fifty miles an hour. That's scary. That's the kind of thing you always think you'd see coming, but when it happens you're just caught there, like a deer in the headlights, and have to sit there and take it. I'm sorry to hear about your experience and am glad you're all OK. I'm not a parent, but I can understand how you'd want, more than anything, to keep your family safe in the near term from clear and present dangers.
That's anecdotal evidence though. Statistically speaking, from a quick search of iihs.gov and safecar.gov, you're just as safe in a sedan and almost as safe in a compact car. If you factor in accident avoidance and rollover ratings you might even want to go with something smaller just in case. That's math speaking, though. If you want to drive around in a tank on the off chance you'll get hit by a rampaging behemoth that's your prerogative. Maybe I'll feel differently when I have kids.
I've always wondered where people get those statistics. I've never been able to find them myself. I'm sure many of the safety features included in newer model cars have saved lives, but what could they put on there that weighs so darn much? You're right, I can't be sure that it's 500 kg of airbags or other stuff I consider frivolous. Can anybody clear this up?
A couple years ago I was a passenger in a civic who's brakes failed and, at just under 30 mph, the car crumpled up like a beer can or a civic of yesteryear. Everyone in both cars was fine, and I'm thankful for that. I am not an engineer, but I doubt it took half a ton of steel to reinforce the passenger compartment enough to keep it from crumpling like all the structures in front of it.
Ah, it seems someone has never heard of the Kammback. IIRC, the theory is that if you stop the teardrop about halfway and have a flat back, the vortex of air behind the car fills in for the missing car, and you don't have to worry about surface drag on the tail. The net effect is even more efficient than a full teardrop.
Electric cars generally have all the low-end torque in the world because their torque curve starts at 0 rpm and is usually pretty flat. Non-purpose-built electric motors usually have lower peak horsepower than you'd expect 'cause they don't rev as high as gasoline engines.. sort've like diesels.
I read that somewhere too... I believe it was car and driver sometime last year? I find it amusing because; without the extra 500kg x speed squared of momentum your car probably doesn't need a thousand pounds of airbags/crumple zones and an extra liter or two of engine to lug 'em around to keep the occupants safe.
Because they're afraid they'll be crushed to a fine pulp when they get hit by a big honking SUV.
Which is amusing because most of those SUVs are over half crumple-zone by volume. There was a time when an SUV was a 4x4 vehicle made of steel that you drove because you needed to be able to go off road or lug all your belongings somewhere in the snow. Those days are long gone. Now it doesn't snow here anymore and an SUV is a minivan with a six-liter v8 purchased for ostentation and to satisfy latent napoleon complexes.
Not to be rude, but maybe you should take the lack of visibility to heard and stay away from the backs and sides of SUVs? You can't expect that just because you are poorly protected and virtually invisible people will be extra careful about preserving your safety. You can hope they will, and you have every right to demand they will, but most drivers are end users and it would be folly to expect anything of them. These are the people who made it illegal to talk on the phone while driving, you know.
I dunno, there are some places in New Hampshire I've been where they're literally the only game in town which would, if regrettably, make them the, "best" provider by default.
What we need is a controlled experiment: If we could follow several thousand or more individuals who've had pornographic exposure and see how many of them become rapists/molestors as opposed to people who haven't been exposed then we might get somewhere. Otherwise all we know is that people who engage in this behavior happen to also like porn. They probably also happen to like tropical vacations too.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe not. Since they didn't give the judge time to rule on it there's no legal precedent set and they can bring the same suit against someone else tomorrow if they so choose. They'll probably keep doing that too, until everyone's either paid settlement money or learned that they don't have to.
I'm pretty sure there was a time back when things weren't released until all or most of the known bugs were dealt with. It was a while ago, so it's possible I just confabulated the memory. Back when if you bought something you got a thing and not just a limited license to access the current state of whatever it was you thought you had bought.
While I can't make any judgments on the relative combat-efficacy of men and women based solely on gender, but it's a well documented fact that game devs do have sexist attitudes towards female characters. Back when I used to play FPS it was almost universally understood that female avatars were smaller targets and moved more quickly. Generally female characters have less realistic proportions (and far more polygons) than their male counterparts. Not that I'm complaining, but I think it's silly to take for granted that characters who are represented as being a fraction as massive will be equally as strong. True their backs and shoulders should be epic from the degree of voluptuosity portrayed, but those biceps and triceps would probably leave a little to be desired.
It's even harder to imagine a legitimate business that would have to resort to spammers to sell their meds.
The problem with that statement is these people's ignorance is causing repercussions for everybody. If some poor soul can't afford six bucks a pop for V1@GR@ and, against all logic, turns to an unsolicited email for help, that's all profit for the spammer and significant profit for the drug shipper. What incentive does this give either of them to use more legitimate means of business? So, they continue to spam, or spam more, and we suffer. Oh, some guy got a counterfeit erectile-dysfunction medication boo-hoo. The rest of us end up having to deal with the continuous deleterious effects of spam. Maybe you can hide behind a decent spam filter running an up-to-date GNU OS and think it doesn't effect you, but you know the truth: unintentional DoS from the sheer volume of spam out there, compromised systems making headaches for IT personnel the world over, and the sheer irritation when one or several dozen cleverly-crafted ads might make it through your filter. It's not worth it. Patronage of spamming institutions should be a crime.
Personally, I think the phone makes me far less effective than an IM ever could and cube-visits are even worse. IMs are the one method of bothering me who's obtrusiveness is under my control. If I choose to I can turn off the pop-up feature, or even do some work while I contemplate a reply. When the company-issued monstrosity on my desk shatters the [comparable] workplace calm with the default ringer at full volume there's no chance of me getting anything done for the next few minutes.That's going to tie up a hand to hold the phone and a good portion of the part of my brain that does stuff. If I get a cubicle visit it's even worse because it's downright rude to even try to do something other than what you're discussing while there's another human being in your cube.
Productivity and stupidity are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Plenty of moderately successful individuals are in the position they are now because they lack the excess brainpower to waste on ethics, logic, and other considerations that might hinder their productivity. eg: I'm sure many of us could churn out more code if we weren't smart enough to get bored.
There already was/is arms-race between tough people and firearm manufacturers. That's one of the reasons we have 45acp and 44magnum rounds. It's not much of a, "race" though seeing as firearms can evolve in minutes and hours while people take several decades.
The habitat, for one.
Well, you used, " is" which would imply that you believe they are one, inviolate whole. I submit that the holy spirit inspired you to make this typo to demonstrate his subtle hand. Alternatively, "Why not?" .
I was posting stochastically. I don't consider a minivan to be any, "better" than an SUV based solely on its automotive class. I do believe that a minivan is usually a car based vehicle, often of unibody construction, for moving medium to large amounts of people or stuff. They're not necessarily build for speed or efficiency, just capacity. The SUV, on the other hand is, speaking generally, well, just that. You take the capacities of a utility vehicle, like a pickup, and amalgamate it with the performance of a sportscar. So you get a truck-based vehicle with the biggest engine you can shoehorn in there.
What I was lamenting in my post was that There has been a steady trend over the past twenty years or so of SUVs getting bigger and more car-like. So instead of a utility vehicle that can handle itself on the street you end up with what is essentially a hot-rodded minivan (car-like kiddie-hauler). I don't think many people could make a convincing case for driving a car that's six-thousand pounds, over six feet tall, and has a three-four-hundred-plus horsepower as a personal transport. I know that isn't all SUVs, but, from what I see around me, it's where the market seems to be headed.
Wow, an expedition going about fifty miles an hour. That's scary. That's the kind of thing you always think you'd see coming, but when it happens you're just caught there, like a deer in the headlights, and have to sit there and take it. I'm sorry to hear about your experience and am glad you're all OK. I'm not a parent, but I can understand how you'd want, more than anything, to keep your family safe in the near term from clear and present dangers.
That's anecdotal evidence though. Statistically speaking, from a quick search of iihs.gov and safecar.gov, you're just as safe in a sedan and almost as safe in a compact car. If you factor in accident avoidance and rollover ratings you might even want to go with something smaller just in case. That's math speaking, though. If you want to drive around in a tank on the off chance you'll get hit by a rampaging behemoth that's your prerogative. Maybe I'll feel differently when I have kids.
I've always wondered where people get those statistics. I've never been able to find them myself. I'm sure many of the safety features included in newer model cars have saved lives, but what could they put on there that weighs so darn much? You're right, I can't be sure that it's 500 kg of airbags or other stuff I consider frivolous. Can anybody clear this up?
A couple years ago I was a passenger in a civic who's brakes failed and, at just under 30 mph, the car crumpled up like a beer can or a civic of yesteryear. Everyone in both cars was fine, and I'm thankful for that. I am not an engineer, but I doubt it took half a ton of steel to reinforce the passenger compartment enough to keep it from crumpling like all the structures in front of it.
Ah, it seems someone has never heard of the Kammback. IIRC, the theory is that if you stop the teardrop about halfway and have a flat back, the vortex of air behind the car fills in for the missing car, and you don't have to worry about surface drag on the tail. The net effect is even more efficient than a full teardrop.
Electric cars generally have all the low-end torque in the world because their torque curve starts at 0 rpm and is usually pretty flat. Non-purpose-built electric motors usually have lower peak horsepower than you'd expect 'cause they don't rev as high as gasoline engines.. sort've like diesels.
I read that somewhere too... I believe it was car and driver sometime last year? I find it amusing because; without the extra 500kg x speed squared of momentum your car probably doesn't need a thousand pounds of airbags/crumple zones and an extra liter or two of engine to lug 'em around to keep the occupants safe.
Which is amusing because most of those SUVs are over half crumple-zone by volume. There was a time when an SUV was a 4x4 vehicle made of steel that you drove because you needed to be able to go off road or lug all your belongings somewhere in the snow. Those days are long gone. Now it doesn't snow here anymore and an SUV is a minivan with a six-liter v8 purchased for ostentation and to satisfy latent napoleon complexes.
Not to be rude, but maybe you should take the lack of visibility to heard and stay away from the backs and sides of SUVs? You can't expect that just because you are poorly protected and virtually invisible people will be extra careful about preserving your safety. You can hope they will, and you have every right to demand they will, but most drivers are end users and it would be folly to expect anything of them. These are the people who made it illegal to talk on the phone while driving, you know.
Yes, but that's nothing new.
What the rest of the world would call, " UMTS v 2.0" if such a thing existed, but yes, ostensibly.
I dunno, there are some places in New Hampshire I've been where they're literally the only game in town which would, if regrettably, make them the, "best" provider by default.
Nice... did your new CPU render .jpgs correctly?
Sorry I squandered my last set of mod points. That was funny.
What we need is a controlled experiment: If we could follow several thousand or more individuals who've had pornographic exposure and see how many of them become rapists/molestors as opposed to people who haven't been exposed then we might get somewhere. Otherwise all we know is that people who engage in this behavior happen to also like porn. They probably also happen to like tropical vacations too.
Not to be combative, but isn't that like saying, "diet soda makes people fat because it increases the general consumption of things that are sweet." ?