I think the assumption here is that the gamer will identify with the product if it is associated with his 'team' in the game. Having the same advertising for two products, one associated with your team and another associated with the enemy makes you want the one associated with the 'good guys' more. Essentially, they're saying that connecting your product with the enemy will actually weaken its percieved value.
I suspect the army already knew this (or at least suspected it, since it is pretty logical). Look at the America's Army game they put out and you see a good example. No matter which side you are on, you are always drawn as a US soldier and the enemy is always drawn as a terrorist, even if you switch sides in the middle of a fight.
The closes I can get to a rape analogy is that a woman seeks out a man, asks him for sex, does the deed, and then the next morning decides he wasn't the guy she was looking for. He was supposed to be a pretty screensaver, and instead turned out to be a spambot. There he is, in her bedroom, writing letters and taking stamps out of her desk.
No, the anology here would be: A woman asks out what seems to be a nice man for dinner. At dinner he slips a roofy into her drink, drags her back to the car and rapes her. The next morning she knows that something is wrong, but can't remember a thing and so doesn't properly report it or deal with the consequences.
Ok, I'll bite. I believe that human life begins with human consciousness and thought. Since a blastocyst consists of less than 100 undifferentiated cells I don't believe that it is possible for it to meet my definition of human life.
Even if the black holes lasted indefinately, their cross sectional area is too small to pick up any significant amount of matter. The Earth would be swallowed up by the sun long before the black hole began to threaten Earth in any way.
I'm sorry, but this guy just reaks of paranoia, I'm not saying he's necissarily wrong or that it shouldn't be investigated but something about this just doesn't seem right.
[I sent a ] handwritten letter [to the white house], because I knew all my communications were tapped, my phones, my computer, and I've had the FBI on me like flies on you-know-what
He's convinced that the FBI is watching him like a hawk, but that they can't intercept a paper letter sent directly to the whitehouse?
See, here's the thing. I really don't care how much it costs or how ridiculous we look, I really don't.
America, the world's bastion of freedom, is holding dozens of people without a trial, without rights, without outside contact and it is destroying our reputation around the world. We were fools to put them there in the first place and if we can't prove that we were correct in arresting them then we deserve to look like fools.
Human rights is more important than what the judicial system looks like or the costs to our government.
Except that the summary specifically says that the new research is being done at the same place they recently tested thier non-AC cooling solutions, so this particular datacenter needs almost no cooling.
The nature of the [breach] is such that card-not-present transactions are actually quite difficult for the bad guys to do because one piece of information we know they did not get was an address.
Because we all know that it's impossible to spoof the magnetic strip on the credit card.
Let's face it, none of us knows what he will do or if it will work. We looked at the choices available and made a decission, some with our minds and some with our hearts. Personally, I voted for Obama because his public stances agreed with mine on most issues while he also appeared intelligent and elequent.
The decisions he's announced (and that have been leaked) so far seem to validate my decision. More money spent on infristructure (both digital and physical), closing down the Guantanamo Bay prison, and denouncing harsh interrogation practices are all good places to start.
That being said, our nation and our world is in for a tough decade which will undoubtably involve countless difficult decissions. Like many difficult decisions, I fully expect some of them to have no 'right' answer, no easy solution, no quick fix. Undoubtably, I will be dissapointed with some of his choices, but I have no way of knowing how many or what the end result of those decisions will be.
Most phones also have this crazy thing called a 'delete' button that removes unwanted pictures or messages from your phone. Now granted, I sopose it would be possible to report someone and then spam their phone with pictures right up until the moment the phone is taken and searched, but I imagine that the police would catch on to that kind of thing (though with kiddy porn, you never know. Police are notoriously stupid on this subject). And of course, in order to send the pictures you must have them yourself, which is very dangerous ground to be on.
The real problem is that just making the accusation (even without the pictures on the cell phone) is enough to get a person fired from their job and ostracized by the community. Child porn is one of the few offenses in America where the rule is guilty until proven innocent beyond any shadow of a doubt. Even if you are eventually proven innocent, the stigma remains and many people have to completely change their life in order to live normally again.
This is going to be an interesting case to watch, we can only hope that the judge and jury assigned to it are smart enough to handle it correctly. Logically, the law should probably read similar to some states's statutory rape laws, where if the 'victim' and 'perpetrator' are close enough in age the punishment is less severe or eliminated entirely. The girls who took and sent the pictures will probably get off with a slap on the wrist, but I am concerned about the guys in this case. I could see them unfairly winding up in jail or a sex offender's registry all too easily.
I guess I'm confused about what Opera expects to get out of this. I know I, for one, would be pretty pissed off to open up my new computer and not have any way to go download Firefox. What exactly are they hoping to gain? Are they really arguing that new computers should ship with no internet browser what so ever?
First and foremost, Homosexuals represent much more than.01% of the population. Most estimates put it closer to 5% and it would probably be higher yet if homosexuality were universally accepted.
Second, just because the majority hold an opinion, doesn't mean that they are correct. Ever hear of the "Tyranny of the majority"? At the end of the cival war, most poeple still didn't think the slaves should be freed. During the civil rights movement, almost no one outside the black community thought that schools should be integrated.
Maybe banning gay marriage won't hurt Google's headhunting abilities, but I can gaurantee one thing: Supporting Homosexual's rights will improve their ability to headhunt, both among homosexuals and those who believe homosexuals deserve equal rights.
That only works if you remove the marriage tag from non-same sex couples as well (and good luck getting that one through). Otherwise you end up with a 'seperate but equal' mentality, and we all know how well that has worked in the past.
That only works if you remove the marriage tag from same sex couples as well (and good luck getting that one through). Otherwise you end up with a 'seperate but equal' mentality, and we all know how well that has worked in the past.
In my opinion, churches that take stances on political issues like that should lose their tax-exempt status, as the clause under which they are tax exempt clearly prohibits political activism.
The problem is, this isn't really a political issue, it is a social issue. I'm certainly not saying I agree with them, I was very dissapointed when my home state passed a law similar to prop 8 a few years ago.
IMHO, marriage is a personal (and sometimes religious) choice, and as such the government should just stay out of it. I don't know where religios people get off trying to tell gay people that they don't have the right to share insurance, file taxes together, and visit each other in the hospital; which are about the only rights being legally married entitles you to anyway.
Just change the wording in all the laws from marriage to civil union and be done with it. If you want to get married, go to a church that will marry you, but don't expect the government to recognize it, and that goes for both straight and gay couples. If you want the rights legally married people currently have, go fill out the paperwork for a civil union at the courthouse, and that also goes for both straight and gay couples.
The difference is that the people that follow this thoery were able to make a prediction (years ago in fact) that has been confirmed with modern testing equipment. Specifically, they predicted that things would become discrete at dimmensions much larger than the Planck Length. If the prediction hadn't panned out, they would have either revised the thoery or abandoned it all together.
Science: Testable, Falsifiable, Adapts to changing evidence. ID:...ummmm... We don't know, therefore 'God Did It'
Strictly playing the devil's advocate here, but I propose a thought experiment:
Imagine if you went to the Ford/GM Manufacturing plant, threw 55% the cost of a new car through the window and then stole one of the new cars on the lot. About 40% of the cost of a new vehicle is materials and labor, with another 10% paying for pensions and whatnot for employees, and about 2.5% profit (so they double their profit). The other 50% is engineering, transportation to the dealer, paying the dealer, etc, etc. So the car company doesn't lose out on anything, except the part that I pay for; in fact, they actually just doubled their profit. I suspect that they'd still be pretty pissed off.
A lot of people on slashdot argue that downloading copyrighted material isn't theft, because you aren't denying the record companies the use of what you are accused of stealing. I understand the difference, the car company is selling a physical product, whereas music is much more intangible. But what happens if, in 100 years, we all have nono-assemblers in our garages? Should it be acceptible for me to download the plans to any car I want without paying for the engineering, advertising, and saftey testing?
Again, I'm not saying that I'm on the record companies side, just posing a little thought experiment. I'm not trying to troll of flamebait, just looking for honest insight. If you feel the need to down-mod me, so be it.
put it this way if that spent fuel is SO radioactive (meaning having lots of energy) then we could harnass it - we just don't know how (i think).
We know how, we just don't want to. The problem is that to refine the waste back into usable fuel, you end up creating something that is (or very nearly is) weapons grade. France has been doing it for decades but in the states the fear of proliferation or theft is too high and it has been resisted at every turn. Check wikipedia for 'breeder reactor' for more information.
Let's be honest here, the 'green revolution' didn't take off until going green started saving you money. Maybe 5% of people might be willing to spend a bit more to save the planet, but 45% are willing to spend more today to save money down the road (the other 50% are either too stupid to see the savings or too poor to afford the upfront costs).
If you want people to save the planet, make it cost effective to do so, feeling good about it isn't enough for most people. Alternative energy is almost there, give it 20 years and every house in suburbia will have a roof of solar panels instead of shingles. Not to to go green, but to save some green.
One thing that is important to remember when you think about ROI calculations is to include the potential interest lost. Many people look at a $5000 installation that saves 500 dolars a year and think that it has paid itself off in 10 years. Really though, you could have put that money into a CD or Money Market and made 3% interest on it over that time, which pushes the break even point out closer to 15 years. Not to mention that a CD is a nearly 100% safe investment, whereas I can imagine numerous senarios that introduce risk for the solar isntallation.
Engineers don't often think about present vs future value of their money, it's not something that we're wired for. I'm not saying that solar can't be economical, I'm just saying to keep in mind all the factors when running the cost effectiveness numbers through your head.
This isn't a question of Classified vs Unclassified information. This is a question of covering the Commander in Chief's ass if things became public knowledge that were never meant to be.
Notice how there's no email trail linking President Bush to the torture of terror suspects or the tapping of our phone lines. If the president sends an email, it legally must be saved. If he has a private meeting with his advisors, all that needs to be recorded is who spoke to whom and when.
A better solution to this problems is: 'Hey, maybe the president shouldn't order or condone illegal or unethical behavior regardless of whether or not there is a record of his statements.'
Slashdot Mirror
How many times do we have to tell you people!? TV's hooked up to cable won't be affected!
I think the assumption here is that the gamer will identify with the product if it is associated with his 'team' in the game. Having the same advertising for two products, one associated with your team and another associated with the enemy makes you want the one associated with the 'good guys' more. Essentially, they're saying that connecting your product with the enemy will actually weaken its percieved value.
I suspect the army already knew this (or at least suspected it, since it is pretty logical). Look at the America's Army game they put out and you see a good example. No matter which side you are on, you are always drawn as a US soldier and the enemy is always drawn as a terrorist, even if you switch sides in the middle of a fight.
The closes I can get to a rape analogy is that a woman seeks out a man, asks him for sex, does the deed, and then the next morning decides he wasn't the guy she was looking for. He was supposed to be a pretty screensaver, and instead turned out to be a spambot. There he is, in her bedroom, writing letters and taking stamps out of her desk.
No, the anology here would be: A woman asks out what seems to be a nice man for dinner. At dinner he slips a roofy into her drink, drags her back to the car and rapes her. The next morning she knows that something is wrong, but can't remember a thing and so doesn't properly report it or deal with the consequences.
What about the woman that gets raped on the street? Isn't she partly responsible for the rapists behavior?
Come on people, quit blaming the victim; especially when the victim is an average person (as is evidence by the sheer size that many botnets reach).
Ok, I'll bite. I believe that human life begins with human consciousness and thought. Since a blastocyst consists of less than 100 undifferentiated cells I don't believe that it is possible for it to meet my definition of human life.
Even if the black holes lasted indefinately, their cross sectional area is too small to pick up any significant amount of matter. The Earth would be swallowed up by the sun long before the black hole began to threaten Earth in any way.
I'm sorry, but this guy just reaks of paranoia, I'm not saying he's necissarily wrong or that it shouldn't be investigated but something about this just doesn't seem right.
[I sent a ] handwritten letter [to the white house], because I knew all my communications were tapped, my phones, my computer, and I've had the FBI on me like flies on you-know-what
He's convinced that the FBI is watching him like a hawk, but that they can't intercept a paper letter sent directly to the whitehouse?
See, here's the thing. I really don't care how much it costs or how ridiculous we look, I really don't.
America, the world's bastion of freedom, is holding dozens of people without a trial, without rights, without outside contact and it is destroying our reputation around the world. We were fools to put them there in the first place and if we can't prove that we were correct in arresting them then we deserve to look like fools.
Human rights is more important than what the judicial system looks like or the costs to our government.
Except that the summary specifically says that the new research is being done at the same place they recently tested thier non-AC cooling solutions, so this particular datacenter needs almost no cooling.
The nature of the [breach] is such that card-not-present transactions are actually quite difficult for the bad guys to do because one piece of information we know they did not get was an address.
Because we all know that it's impossible to spoof the magnetic strip on the credit card.
Let's face it, none of us knows what he will do or if it will work. We looked at the choices available and made a decission, some with our minds and some with our hearts. Personally, I voted for Obama because his public stances agreed with mine on most issues while he also appeared intelligent and elequent.
The decisions he's announced (and that have been leaked) so far seem to validate my decision. More money spent on infristructure (both digital and physical), closing down the Guantanamo Bay prison, and denouncing harsh interrogation practices are all good places to start.
That being said, our nation and our world is in for a tough decade which will undoubtably involve countless difficult decissions. Like many difficult decisions, I fully expect some of them to have no 'right' answer, no easy solution, no quick fix. Undoubtably, I will be dissapointed with some of his choices, but I have no way of knowing how many or what the end result of those decisions will be.
Most phones also have this crazy thing called a 'delete' button that removes unwanted pictures or messages from your phone. Now granted, I sopose it would be possible to report someone and then spam their phone with pictures right up until the moment the phone is taken and searched, but I imagine that the police would catch on to that kind of thing (though with kiddy porn, you never know. Police are notoriously stupid on this subject). And of course, in order to send the pictures you must have them yourself, which is very dangerous ground to be on.
The real problem is that just making the accusation (even without the pictures on the cell phone) is enough to get a person fired from their job and ostracized by the community. Child porn is one of the few offenses in America where the rule is guilty until proven innocent beyond any shadow of a doubt. Even if you are eventually proven innocent, the stigma remains and many people have to completely change their life in order to live normally again.
This is going to be an interesting case to watch, we can only hope that the judge and jury assigned to it are smart enough to handle it correctly. Logically, the law should probably read similar to some states's statutory rape laws, where if the 'victim' and 'perpetrator' are close enough in age the punishment is less severe or eliminated entirely. The girls who took and sent the pictures will probably get off with a slap on the wrist, but I am concerned about the guys in this case. I could see them unfairly winding up in jail or a sex offender's registry all too easily.
I guess I'm confused about what Opera expects to get out of this. I know I, for one, would be pretty pissed off to open up my new computer and not have any way to go download Firefox. What exactly are they hoping to gain? Are they really arguing that new computers should ship with no internet browser what so ever?
...what's to stop Best Buy from inflating their already-borderline-ridiculous prices even further?
Target, Wallmart, Sam's Club, local retailers, amazon, newegg, froogle, etc...
First and foremost, Homosexuals represent much more than .01% of the population. Most estimates put it closer to 5% and it would probably be higher yet if homosexuality were universally accepted.
Second, just because the majority hold an opinion, doesn't mean that they are correct. Ever hear of the "Tyranny of the majority"? At the end of the cival war, most poeple still didn't think the slaves should be freed. During the civil rights movement, almost no one outside the black community thought that schools should be integrated.
Maybe banning gay marriage won't hurt Google's headhunting abilities, but I can gaurantee one thing: Supporting Homosexual's rights will improve their ability to headhunt, both among homosexuals and those who believe homosexuals deserve equal rights.
That only works if you remove the marriage tag from non-same sex couples as well (and good luck getting that one through). Otherwise you end up with a 'seperate but equal' mentality, and we all know how well that has worked in the past.
Damn no edit button!
That only works if you remove the marriage tag from same sex couples as well (and good luck getting that one through). Otherwise you end up with a 'seperate but equal' mentality, and we all know how well that has worked in the past.
In my opinion, churches that take stances on political issues like that should lose their tax-exempt status, as the clause under which they are tax exempt clearly prohibits political activism.
The problem is, this isn't really a political issue, it is a social issue. I'm certainly not saying I agree with them, I was very dissapointed when my home state passed a law similar to prop 8 a few years ago.
IMHO, marriage is a personal (and sometimes religious) choice, and as such the government should just stay out of it. I don't know where religios people get off trying to tell gay people that they don't have the right to share insurance, file taxes together, and visit each other in the hospital; which are about the only rights being legally married entitles you to anyway.
Just change the wording in all the laws from marriage to civil union and be done with it. If you want to get married, go to a church that will marry you, but don't expect the government to recognize it, and that goes for both straight and gay couples. If you want the rights legally married people currently have, go fill out the paperwork for a civil union at the courthouse, and that also goes for both straight and gay couples.
The difference is that the people that follow this thoery were able to make a prediction (years ago in fact) that has been confirmed with modern testing equipment. Specifically, they predicted that things would become discrete at dimmensions much larger than the Planck Length. If the prediction hadn't panned out, they would have either revised the thoery or abandoned it all together.
Science: Testable, Falsifiable, Adapts to changing evidence. ...ummmm... We don't know, therefore 'God Did It'
ID:
Strictly playing the devil's advocate here, but I propose a thought experiment:
Imagine if you went to the Ford/GM Manufacturing plant, threw 55% the cost of a new car through the window and then stole one of the new cars on the lot. About 40% of the cost of a new vehicle is materials and labor, with another 10% paying for pensions and whatnot for employees, and about 2.5% profit (so they double their profit). The other 50% is engineering, transportation to the dealer, paying the dealer, etc, etc. So the car company doesn't lose out on anything, except the part that I pay for; in fact, they actually just doubled their profit. I suspect that they'd still be pretty pissed off.
A lot of people on slashdot argue that downloading copyrighted material isn't theft, because you aren't denying the record companies the use of what you are accused of stealing. I understand the difference, the car company is selling a physical product, whereas music is much more intangible. But what happens if, in 100 years, we all have nono-assemblers in our garages? Should it be acceptible for me to download the plans to any car I want without paying for the engineering, advertising, and saftey testing?
Again, I'm not saying that I'm on the record companies side, just posing a little thought experiment. I'm not trying to troll of flamebait, just looking for honest insight. If you feel the need to down-mod me, so be it.
While your comment is, indeed, insightful. Allow me to say the following:
Whooooooosh!
put it this way if that spent fuel is SO radioactive (meaning having lots of energy) then we could harnass it - we just don't know how (i think).
We know how, we just don't want to. The problem is that to refine the waste back into usable fuel, you end up creating something that is (or very nearly is) weapons grade. France has been doing it for decades but in the states the fear of proliferation or theft is too high and it has been resisted at every turn. Check wikipedia for 'breeder reactor' for more information.
Let's be honest here, the 'green revolution' didn't take off until going green started saving you money. Maybe 5% of people might be willing to spend a bit more to save the planet, but 45% are willing to spend more today to save money down the road (the other 50% are either too stupid to see the savings or too poor to afford the upfront costs).
If you want people to save the planet, make it cost effective to do so, feeling good about it isn't enough for most people. Alternative energy is almost there, give it 20 years and every house in suburbia will have a roof of solar panels instead of shingles. Not to to go green, but to save some green.
One thing that is important to remember when you think about ROI calculations is to include the potential interest lost. Many people look at a $5000 installation that saves 500 dolars a year and think that it has paid itself off in 10 years. Really though, you could have put that money into a CD or Money Market and made 3% interest on it over that time, which pushes the break even point out closer to 15 years. Not to mention that a CD is a nearly 100% safe investment, whereas I can imagine numerous senarios that introduce risk for the solar isntallation.
Engineers don't often think about present vs future value of their money, it's not something that we're wired for. I'm not saying that solar can't be economical, I'm just saying to keep in mind all the factors when running the cost effectiveness numbers through your head.
This isn't a question of Classified vs Unclassified information. This is a question of covering the Commander in Chief's ass if things became public knowledge that were never meant to be.
Notice how there's no email trail linking President Bush to the torture of terror suspects or the tapping of our phone lines. If the president sends an email, it legally must be saved. If he has a private meeting with his advisors, all that needs to be recorded is who spoke to whom and when.
A better solution to this problems is: 'Hey, maybe the president shouldn't order or condone illegal or unethical behavior regardless of whether or not there is a record of his statements.'