No, you're talking about how you think they should work.
Yes, we're reserved all rights not specifically granted to the federal government. However, the states have the capacity to further restrict those rights. Rights specified in the constitution cannot be restricted by the federal OR state government. To the contrary, the federal government is required to guarantee and protect those rights.
This is how it is, and this is why getting a right in by default isn't as powerful as getting a right in explicitly. Those that are in explicitly are also fucked over with time, because politicians are assholes.
With Ubisoft putting out such fantastic titles such as "Imagine: Horsez" by the bucketload, they'll need to show me their full financials before I buy into the $60 million argument.
Developers had no problem jumping ship to the current gen and making money. Games went up $10 on average if you own a 360 or a PS3. They charge you for updates that used to be free, and they charge you to download unlock codes for maps, levels, game modes, costumes, and fucking furniture for your virtual corporate tool. Developers will work out plenty of ways to make morons pay through the nose to cover increasing costs.
OnLive as competition? Yeah, and I hear that Apple is going to be seriously entering the game market aaaaaaaaaaaany second now.
This is a fucking joke. The next generation will come around when the current players decide that it's strategically viable.
Let's look at the charts, shall we?
Nintendo has won. They want the current generation to last for as long as they are making buckets and buckets of money. Nintendo will be the last of the three to go to the next generation (in terms of hard announcements). The ONLY possible scenario that would cause Nintendo to be the first to announce would be the motion controllers from MS or Sony taking away from Nintendo's profits. Nintendo would then make an announcement merely to fuck with the competitors' time tables. (Hint: Natal and Sony's tech will NOT save the 360 or PS3.)
Nintendo will be the last to announce.
MS is in second place, and will likely be the first to announce their next console. MS really want to push Natal to try and steal Nintendo's thunder, but despite their lines about Natal being the next generation XBOX, the fact is the only way MS can capitalize on it is if it's bundled with ALL systems. MS will push this generation as long as it can sell Natal units or Natal + 360 bundles. They need to recoup major cash from their warranty fiasco. MS likely wants Natal to get an extra 18 months to 2 years out of the 360. I don't think it'll be the hot shit they want it to be, but who knows.
MS will announce their next-gen hardware first.
Sony is fucked. I own a PS3 myself and enjoy it, but there's no denying that it simply didn't have the success of the PS2. I think five hundred and ninety-nine US dollars may have had a part to play with that. And with the 360 a year ahead, no one wanted to learn how to develop for the Cell. The bottom line is that Sony will announce the slim PS3 this fall and try to get some momentum, especially in Japan. Sony can capitalize on the release of Final Fantasy XIII along with the slim PS3 in Japan at the end of this year. I don't know if they can do the same thing in the US, especially since FFXIII is on the 360 as well. I expect Sony to keep trying for the "year of the PS3" until someone else makes an announcement. Sony has lost so much cash with the PS3 that they need to get as much mileage out of it as they can and can't risk jumping ship too early. Once MS reveals their hand, Sony will be free to show theirs without much risk of cutting off the PS3 before it's prime, or being one-upped tech wise or timewise for the next gen.
Sony will be second to announce.
The timeline as I see it is basically:
MS releases Natal and Natal + 360 bundles in 2010. Sales aren't great. MS announces E3 2011. Details about the PS4 "leak" in the fall of 2011. Sony announces E3 2012. Nintendo teases E3 2012, in response to Sony's announcement. Nintendo won't have a full reveal until E3 2013.
Late 2013 MS launches. Early 2014 Sony launches. Fall 2014 Nintendo launches.
No, my point is that you either have a right, or you don't.
Obviously in this country we do NOT have the right to free speech. People can be censored, fined, and imprisoned for words alone.
You think you're free to criticize the government? Do that on the whitehouse lawn. Do that at the security checkpoint the next time you fly.
The same thing would happen (and indeed has happened) if we were specifically given a right to privacy. A general right will be eroded over time. They start with the edges. Criminals shouldn't have the same right to bear arms that others have. Computer hackers shouldn't be allowed to use computers. Pedophiles need to be tracked 24/7. The masses eat up the FUD and support shit that infringes on their rights.
If we're adding a right to privacy to the constitution, we have to make it as specific as possible for today, as well as provide a general wording to be applied in the future. I would even go as far as to say that it must provide punishment guidelines for any person or government entity that breeches said rights.
That's a nice little story, but if you can't do your shit with a pencil and a sheet of paper, then you don't actually understand it.
A understanding of the fundamentals of the math you're doing is the most important thing. I rarely found the need to memorize formulas for math and physics. I often found myself proving or reasoning out various formulas in the margins of my paper as I solved problems. I was able to do that because I understood the fundamentals of what I was doing.
A fundamental understanding will improve your performance (in testing and real-world usage) regardless of what tools you use. Open book? Open notes? Calculator? Why? A decently-written test will avoid things you need to memorize (such as transformations, physical constants, etc.) or provide them for you. A decent professor will follow your work through even if you get that formula or constant wrong.
Of course, it's hard to find a good professor or a good test these days.
(Obviously only using paper and a pencil isn't feasible for a lot of things, but I think you all get the point.)
The point is if we have a "right to privacy" (and I still contend that we do NOT) specified, then it will be eroded, as out right to free speech has, and our right to bear arms has.
The right to free speech DOES give you the right to talk about murdering someone. The fact that you'll get arrested for talking about it is an erosion of that right. You can be scrutinized and investigated without infringing on that right. You can be arrested if an actual plot is uncovered. You can be sued if there is demonstrable harm done, such as to your intended target. But when you are silenced or censored, or punished for what you say, that is an erosion of the right to free speech.
The same thing goes with the right to bear arms. The government telling me what guns I can own, how many, how long I need to wait to get them, etc., are all eating away at my rights.
The same thing goes for the "right to privacy". As soon as it was interpreted in to the constitution, it started getting eaten away at.
You either have to define the right completely and explicitly (impossible) or define the right broadly, and define any exceptions at the same level (in the constitution itself). Since the right to privacy is not specifically listed, each time a case involving privacy issues comes forward, it's open to interpretation. This is why people always fear Roe vs Wade getting overturned.
Furthermore, a right to privacy would not just be in relation to the government. If a person has a right to privacy, then it is the government's responsibility to protect that right.
Telemarketer calls you? Take them to court. Facebook won't let you delete your profile? Take them to court. Doctor tells you you have aids, and you don't want to reveal that to your partners? You just got out of prison but don't want to register as a sex offender, wear a locating device, and inform your neighbors for the rest of your life?
There are countless examples of where it is just fucking impossible for a "right to privacy" to exist. These are not straw-man arguments (anyone using that term as a rebuttal loses, by the way - it's the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and singing "i can't hear you!"). You've defined it well with regards to an exception for the government. What about in dealings with non-federal entities? Or does this right ONLY apply to dealings with the federal government (if so, it's not a RIGHT, and it's pretty useless).
As I said, even considering that the right to privacy would fall under a reserved right for the people (by not being listed), it makes no sense.
You can't just claim a right to privacy.
Don't want to pay taxes? By my right to privacy, I won't tell you how much I earned.
Don't want to obey the law? By my right to privacy, you can't know my name or address, office.
Don't want to be drafted? Don't want ?
I agree that we need privacy rights. We don't need a general "right to privacy" because it'll just be eroded away like the freedom of speech or the right to bear arms.
The real answers are, yes, yes, and no. The right to privacy is a recent idea (in terms of it being a right guaranteed by the US Constitution). It's not actually in there, and I think court cases that have interpreted it as being in there have been flat out wrong.
I do think we need the right to privacy (actual privacy, not the bullshit we have now), but we do NOT have it, even as a reserved right (in terms of interpreting anything not in the Constitution).
Privacy rights are so hard to define because we could use them as a justification for literally everything (or at least as a justification against getting prosecuted for said things).
We NEED to define them, and we NEED to get the people involved, NOT the politicians, NOT the lawyers, NOT the corporations, NOT law enforcement goons.
There is no need for a separation of digital privacy rights vs non-digital privacy rights. Such a separation is unnecessary, and merely presents potential loopholes for attacks.
I have an original Samsung Blackjack (i607). It's a Windows Mobile phone (5, and Samsung put out a new image with 6 for free).
My unlimited 3G data plan is $25 / month.
I can tether my phone to my PC/Laptop/whatever and use it as a modem.
This is a feature of the phone, and not the wireless carrier. The wireless carrier has no idea what's going on. My phone gets data as it would regardless of whether or not I'm tethering. My phone then sends that over USB to my device (my phone doesn't have WiFi).
You suffer from the confusion because of the ill-conceived notion that KB means 1000 bytes.
You suffer from the confusion because of the ill-conceived notion that the prefixes have anything to do with SI units.
It takes 2 seconds to explain that KB means something other than K.
Yet your preferred solution relies on the improper claim that KB is an improper use of SI units.
We now have the following problem:
KB - what does it mean? Was it written before the KiB bullshit? So does it mean 1024? Or was it written after, meaning 1000? If it was after, is the person aware of KiB? Do they adhere to it?
The idea that SI units had anything to do with KB have CREATED the confusion.
Yet people like you who have gotten confused once, maybe made a forum post along the lines of "Why is my 100 GB hard drive only 93.1 GB?", refuse to admit that you were ignorant about something. Instead of admitting to not knowing the meaning of a technical term, you claim the term is wrong.
My question about ampersands (and punctuation in general) was rhetorical. It means, "sort out your filesystem and OS restrictions and come up with a definitive super set of restrictions".
Slashdot Mirror
Gold is king.
Android wifi skype?
Shit son, get yourself a cellphone with Windows mobile and wifi. That shit has been available for ages.
No, you're talking about how you think they should work.
Yes, we're reserved all rights not specifically granted to the federal government. However, the states have the capacity to further restrict those rights. Rights specified in the constitution cannot be restricted by the federal OR state government. To the contrary, the federal government is required to guarantee and protect those rights.
This is how it is, and this is why getting a right in by default isn't as powerful as getting a right in explicitly. Those that are in explicitly are also fucked over with time, because politicians are assholes.
With Ubisoft putting out such fantastic titles such as "Imagine: Horsez" by the bucketload, they'll need to show me their full financials before I buy into the $60 million argument.
Developers had no problem jumping ship to the current gen and making money. Games went up $10 on average if you own a 360 or a PS3. They charge you for updates that used to be free, and they charge you to download unlock codes for maps, levels, game modes, costumes, and fucking furniture for your virtual corporate tool. Developers will work out plenty of ways to make morons pay through the nose to cover increasing costs.
OnLive as competition?
Yeah, and I hear that Apple is going to be seriously entering the game market aaaaaaaaaaaany second now.
This is a fucking joke.
The next generation will come around when the current players decide that it's strategically viable.
Let's look at the charts, shall we?
Nintendo has won. They want the current generation to last for as long as they are making buckets and buckets of money.
Nintendo will be the last of the three to go to the next generation (in terms of hard announcements). The ONLY possible scenario that would cause Nintendo to be the first to announce would be the motion controllers from MS or Sony taking away from Nintendo's profits. Nintendo would then make an announcement merely to fuck with the competitors' time tables. (Hint: Natal and Sony's tech will NOT save the 360 or PS3.)
Nintendo will be the last to announce.
MS is in second place, and will likely be the first to announce their next console. MS really want to push Natal to try and steal Nintendo's thunder, but despite their lines about Natal being the next generation XBOX, the fact is the only way MS can capitalize on it is if it's bundled with ALL systems. MS will push this generation as long as it can sell Natal units or Natal + 360 bundles. They need to recoup major cash from their warranty fiasco. MS likely wants Natal to get an extra 18 months to 2 years out of the 360. I don't think it'll be the hot shit they want it to be, but who knows.
MS will announce their next-gen hardware first.
Sony is fucked. I own a PS3 myself and enjoy it, but there's no denying that it simply didn't have the success of the PS2. I think five hundred and ninety-nine US dollars may have had a part to play with that. And with the 360 a year ahead, no one wanted to learn how to develop for the Cell. The bottom line is that Sony will announce the slim PS3 this fall and try to get some momentum, especially in Japan. Sony can capitalize on the release of Final Fantasy XIII along with the slim PS3 in Japan at the end of this year. I don't know if they can do the same thing in the US, especially since FFXIII is on the 360 as well. I expect Sony to keep trying for the "year of the PS3" until someone else makes an announcement. Sony has lost so much cash with the PS3 that they need to get as much mileage out of it as they can and can't risk jumping ship too early. Once MS reveals their hand, Sony will be free to show theirs without much risk of cutting off the PS3 before it's prime, or being one-upped tech wise or timewise for the next gen.
Sony will be second to announce.
The timeline as I see it is basically:
MS releases Natal and Natal + 360 bundles in 2010.
Sales aren't great.
MS announces E3 2011.
Details about the PS4 "leak" in the fall of 2011.
Sony announces E3 2012.
Nintendo teases E3 2012, in response to Sony's announcement. Nintendo won't have a full reveal until E3 2013.
Late 2013 MS launches.
Early 2014 Sony launches.
Fall 2014 Nintendo launches.
Inalienable rights.
That are stripped from us and whittled away.
I'm sorry, I'm speaking as to what is actually happening. Not what should be.
Oh she can call herself whatever she wants.
Geekess is not a word, though, and gendered nouns are dumb.
No, my point is that you either have a right, or you don't.
Obviously in this country we do NOT have the right to free speech. People can be censored, fined, and imprisoned for words alone.
You think you're free to criticize the government? Do that on the whitehouse lawn. Do that at the security checkpoint the next time you fly.
The same thing would happen (and indeed has happened) if we were specifically given a right to privacy. A general right will be eroded over time. They start with the edges. Criminals shouldn't have the same right to bear arms that others have. Computer hackers shouldn't be allowed to use computers. Pedophiles need to be tracked 24/7. The masses eat up the FUD and support shit that infringes on their rights.
If we're adding a right to privacy to the constitution, we have to make it as specific as possible for today, as well as provide a general wording to be applied in the future. I would even go as far as to say that it must provide punishment guidelines for any person or government entity that breeches said rights.
Who's going to check to see that the steps are correct? The TA? Dude barely speaks English!
That's a nice little story, but if you can't do your shit with a pencil and a sheet of paper, then you don't actually understand it.
A understanding of the fundamentals of the math you're doing is the most important thing.
I rarely found the need to memorize formulas for math and physics. I often found myself proving or reasoning out various formulas in the margins of my paper as I solved problems. I was able to do that because I understood the fundamentals of what I was doing.
A fundamental understanding will improve your performance (in testing and real-world usage) regardless of what tools you use. Open book? Open notes? Calculator? Why? A decently-written test will avoid things you need to memorize (such as transformations, physical constants, etc.) or provide them for you. A decent professor will follow your work through even if you get that formula or constant wrong.
Of course, it's hard to find a good professor or a good test these days.
(Obviously only using paper and a pencil isn't feasible for a lot of things, but I think you all get the point.)
The point is if we have a "right to privacy" (and I still contend that we do NOT) specified, then it will be eroded, as out right to free speech has, and our right to bear arms has.
The right to free speech DOES give you the right to talk about murdering someone. The fact that you'll get arrested for talking about it is an erosion of that right. You can be scrutinized and investigated without infringing on that right. You can be arrested if an actual plot is uncovered. You can be sued if there is demonstrable harm done, such as to your intended target. But when you are silenced or censored, or punished for what you say, that is an erosion of the right to free speech.
The same thing goes with the right to bear arms.
The government telling me what guns I can own, how many, how long I need to wait to get them, etc., are all eating away at my rights.
The same thing goes for the "right to privacy". As soon as it was interpreted in to the constitution, it started getting eaten away at.
You either have to define the right completely and explicitly (impossible) or define the right broadly, and define any exceptions at the same level (in the constitution itself). Since the right to privacy is not specifically listed, each time a case involving privacy issues comes forward, it's open to interpretation. This is why people always fear Roe vs Wade getting overturned.
Furthermore, a right to privacy would not just be in relation to the government. If a person has a right to privacy, then it is the government's responsibility to protect that right.
Telemarketer calls you? Take them to court. Facebook won't let you delete your profile? Take them to court. Doctor tells you you have aids, and you don't want to reveal that to your partners? You just got out of prison but don't want to register as a sex offender, wear a locating device, and inform your neighbors for the rest of your life?
There are countless examples of where it is just fucking impossible for a "right to privacy" to exist. These are not straw-man arguments (anyone using that term as a rebuttal loses, by the way - it's the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ear and singing "i can't hear you!"). You've defined it well with regards to an exception for the government. What about in dealings with non-federal entities? Or does this right ONLY apply to dealings with the federal government (if so, it's not a RIGHT, and it's pretty useless).
No, those are the best types of classes, because no one does any work and everyone tanks the exam, making the curve oh so easy.
As I said, even considering that the right to privacy would fall under a reserved right for the people (by not being listed), it makes no sense.
You can't just claim a right to privacy.
Don't want to pay taxes? By my right to privacy, I won't tell you how much I earned.
Don't want to obey the law? By my right to privacy, you can't know my name or address, office.
Don't want to be drafted?
Don't want ?
I agree that we need privacy rights.
We don't need a general "right to privacy" because it'll just be eroded away like the freedom of speech or the right to bear arms.
Political donations should be SEVERELY punished.
Fixed.
I choose to communicate with my friend through notes scrawled out on the corpses of my victims.
The real answers are, yes, yes, and no.
The right to privacy is a recent idea (in terms of it being a right guaranteed by the US Constitution).
It's not actually in there, and I think court cases that have interpreted it as being in there have been flat out wrong.
I do think we need the right to privacy (actual privacy, not the bullshit we have now), but we do NOT have it, even as a reserved right (in terms of interpreting anything not in the Constitution).
Privacy rights are so hard to define because we could use them as a justification for literally everything (or at least as a justification against getting prosecuted for said things).
We NEED to define them, and we NEED to get the people involved, NOT the politicians, NOT the lawyers, NOT the corporations, NOT law enforcement goons.
There is no need for a separation of digital privacy rights vs non-digital privacy rights. Such a separation is unnecessary, and merely presents potential loopholes for attacks.
No, you mean SyFy.
Gravitational waves, by definition, are always at sea level.
Can we work in a George Costanza + Frogger high score reference somehow?
Actually, queue. We expect a lot. We're just about to tell them to line up.
I wonder about the structural integrity and the electrical grounding.
Come see the violence inherent in the system!
What does SAP sell?
I checked their website, and it was filled to the brim with buzz words.
No actual product to buy.
Yet I bet they make billions selling it.
(Yes, I'm trolling)
I have an original Samsung Blackjack (i607).
It's a Windows Mobile phone (5, and Samsung put out a new image with 6 for free).
My unlimited 3G data plan is $25 / month.
I can tether my phone to my PC/Laptop/whatever and use it as a modem.
This is a feature of the phone, and not the wireless carrier. The wireless carrier has no idea what's going on. My phone gets data as it would regardless of whether or not I'm tethering. My phone then sends that over USB to my device (my phone doesn't have WiFi).
I'll never be "upgrading" my contract with AT&T.
You suffer from the confusion because of the ill-conceived notion that KB means 1000 bytes.
You suffer from the confusion because of the ill-conceived notion that the prefixes have anything to do with SI units.
It takes 2 seconds to explain that KB means something other than K.
Yet your preferred solution relies on the improper claim that KB is an improper use of SI units.
We now have the following problem:
KB - what does it mean? Was it written before the KiB bullshit? So does it mean 1024? Or was it written after, meaning 1000? If it was after, is the person aware of KiB? Do they adhere to it?
The idea that SI units had anything to do with KB have CREATED the confusion.
Yet people like you who have gotten confused once, maybe made a forum post along the lines of "Why is my 100 GB hard drive only 93.1 GB?", refuse to admit that you were ignorant about something. Instead of admitting to not knowing the meaning of a technical term, you claim the term is wrong.
Yes, it's intentional that I mixed a bunch of shit in.
I seriously doubt these people are digging through all these folders in a gui and then feeding them to command line shit.
Besides: ./-file.ext
command -input -file.ext
command -input
?
My question about ampersands (and punctuation in general) was rhetorical. It means, "sort out your filesystem and OS restrictions and come up with a definitive super set of restrictions".