the barrier for entry is set relatively high here.
I for one will rest easy knowing that only the most enterprising and wealthy cybercriminals will be making a fortune in illicit bullshit from this. That's what a free market's all about, after all.
I would pay through the nose for a Linux or BSD version of Starcraft 2, but only if it worked as well as the Windows version. What is being done to make Starcraft 2 equally available to users of all operating systems?
Similarly, what if anything is being done to make Starcraft 2 fully playable on lower-end systems, particularly those without powerful video cards? One of the things I like best about Brood War is that I can play it on a lower-end laptop, which only supports integrated graphics. Will it be possible for me to do the same with Starcraft 2 (will it be possible to turn the graphics down low enough?) or would you be asking me and players like me to buy new systems for this game?
You're immune to search if you're capable of putting sufficient encryption on (and "forgetting" the passwords long enough? are we required to give keys to them at this point or not?) that they can't crack it within 24 hours?
(Or, of course, don't-have-anything-incriminating-on-your-laptop-you-moron, but considering the government's definition of "incriminating" can be as slim as "search him, he's wearing a turban", I for one don't want to bank that my laptop doesn't contain anything "incriminating", and I violate the law FAR less often than the typical person of my age. Particularly the bits where you aren't allowed to shoot up drugs.)
It's kinda like the other article about Gmail's math-problems-as-barrier-to-sending-mail thing; all you're doing is giving an edge to the competent. How about actual freedom?
Hear hear. Of course, the Constitution has been amended with horrible lack of foresight (and has not been amended in many cases where it should have been), but it's still a damn useful piece of paper. We just need to start using it better.
I'm quite liberal, but your claim that Bush "has used more presidential vetos than every other President in US history COMBINED" is complete and utter bullshit. He's used his veto twelve times. The total number of presidential vetoes since Washington first took office is 2557. Of course, he's attempted to use "signing statements" to give himself what amounts to a line-item veto, and I haven't checked the count of those or to what extent they're being avoided, but what you said was simply not true.
However, your misunderstanding on that point (I assume no one would lie about something that incredibly, obviously untrue) does not change the fact that filibusters have effectively unmanned the Democrats' attempt to use their majority positively. Welcome to the two-party system. Until and unless we get rid of it, it'll take a 60-40 or greater (filibuster-proof) majority to actually get anything done in Congress.
If you don't feel like reading that yourself, the bottom line is that even if you read everything from the GOP's point of view, at least 40 of those "votes" are bullshit.
Since I'm as partisan as you are, I'd say that most attempts to challenge their positions, while they may not be ad hominem attacks, are worthy of only slightly more consideration. Their economic policies may be flawed, but certainly not as flawed as those of the Republican party, and socially speaking most of the issues aren't even really debatable. Gun control is a notable exception, but thinking that it's your right to decide whether men marry other men and women marry other women? Come on, guys.
I'm pretty sure what took them so long was the fact that the Republicans and every other political party in existence (I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't know of any) lie out their asses about everything under the sun. It takes a healthy amount of skepticism to get any sort of political truth out of anyone these days.
I mean, of course they shouldn't be watching that much TV in the first place. If nothing else, spend it on the Internet instead, you'll generally get a higher cut of crap. But that isn't the point. The point is that giving misguided parents yet more ways to restrict their kids' freedom and responsibility in the interest of "protection" is a perfect recipe for a generation to come that will be even more ludicrously incompetent than mine, one that rebels against authority with even more force, and one that, to be blunt, has far more fun than I'm comfortable with them having. Censorship and restriction during childhood causes far more problems than it solves (the main problem it solves is keeping parents from having to actually teach their kids to be responsible). We can't force parents to be responsible, but that doesn't mean we can't be a responsible society. Let kids take care of themselves a bit. Parents are going to be overprotective whether the technology and laws support it or not; let's give children a run for their goddamn money.
I resent the association not because it associates something I feel is good with something I feel is bad, but associates two often-misunderstood concepts both of which I believe are theoretically good with a negative connotation.
I found the joke funny and your addition useful, and I now regret killing it with the objection (I'd mod you funny if I hadn't already posted in this thread). However, the association of atheism with communism does no good to either movement. As an atheist, I'm sure you've had your share of negative associations (I've actually been asked, on two occasions, by people who learned I was an atheist, if I was raped as a child). For that reason, I'd like you to refrain from making the association, regardless of whether it is likely to be factually accurate or not.
You're absolutely right about the lack of leftist politics in the United States - we've gone on a massive right-shift that makes any pre-Reagan Republican look downright liberal by today's standards.
No fiscal conservatives, though? You're obviously on the internet, how have you missed out on the collective orgasm over Ron Paul?
Er...have you looked at the composition of the upper echelons of his campaign lately? If not, the sheer number of lobbyists he's had to fire once the media bothered to mention they were lobbyists should give you a hint.
As for other "honorable" decisions of McCain's, besides putting CEOs' sockpuppets into his campaign in overwhelming numbers, how about supporting Bush's theory that unlimited wiretaps are legal?
DerWulf is right here, but he hasn't included all the reasons chess is unlike war AND THEREFORE very strategically intense. Yes, in chess you have perfect information, but you also have attacker-always-wins, one-move-per-turn, arbitrary movement rules, pawn ascension, and the whole bit with capturing the king to win. Chess is different from war in nearly every way, which is why it's so strategically intense - war is all about economics, tactics, intelligence, and luck. Of course, "tactics" in modern war can encompass an entire country's worth of combat, but it's still tactics, not strategy.
I'm a protoss man, but my idea of "defense" is "army so big the opponent can't defeat it". Of course, high templar make that a lot easier...insert drooling here.
The main reason chess is so strategically intense is that it is so unlike a real war situation. Moving one piece at a time, arbitrary movement rules, attacker-always-wins capturing, set beginning formations...these are things that tend to create a very unrealistic situation, but also one that is very strategy-dependent. If you remove every semblance of tactics, strategy becomes key.
Yes, which is why your comment was interesting, it seems like the more realistic the game is, the less strategy it actually involved.
I've talked to a few military types I know since you made that comment, and they've confirmed for me that in their opinions, the simulations they've played that are most like their combat experiences are also the ones that involve the least strategy.
Slashdot Mirror
the barrier for entry is set relatively high here.
I for one will rest easy knowing that only the most enterprising and wealthy cybercriminals will be making a fortune in illicit bullshit from this. That's what a free market's all about, after all.
What will Apple and Facebook do? They can't afford a British literature gap!
I would pay through the nose for a Linux or BSD version of Starcraft 2, but only if it worked as well as the Windows version. What is being done to make Starcraft 2 equally available to users of all operating systems? Similarly, what if anything is being done to make Starcraft 2 fully playable on lower-end systems, particularly those without powerful video cards? One of the things I like best about Brood War is that I can play it on a lower-end laptop, which only supports integrated graphics. Will it be possible for me to do the same with Starcraft 2 (will it be possible to turn the graphics down low enough?) or would you be asking me and players like me to buy new systems for this game?
You're immune to search if you're capable of putting sufficient encryption on (and "forgetting" the passwords long enough? are we required to give keys to them at this point or not?) that they can't crack it within 24 hours?
(Or, of course, don't-have-anything-incriminating-on-your-laptop-you-moron, but considering the government's definition of "incriminating" can be as slim as "search him, he's wearing a turban", I for one don't want to bank that my laptop doesn't contain anything "incriminating", and I violate the law FAR less often than the typical person of my age. Particularly the bits where you aren't allowed to shoot up drugs.)
It's kinda like the other article about Gmail's math-problems-as-barrier-to-sending-mail thing; all you're doing is giving an edge to the competent. How about actual freedom?
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you.
I thought for sure I was the only person in the whole damn country who remembered that one.
Thank you.
Hear hear. Of course, the Constitution has been amended with horrible lack of foresight (and has not been amended in many cases where it should have been), but it's still a damn useful piece of paper. We just need to start using it better.
I'm quite liberal, but your claim that Bush "has used more presidential vetos than every other President in US history COMBINED" is complete and utter bullshit. He's used his veto twelve times. The total number of presidential vetoes since Washington first took office is 2557. Of course, he's attempted to use "signing statements" to give himself what amounts to a line-item veto, and I haven't checked the count of those or to what extent they're being avoided, but what you said was simply not true.
However, your misunderstanding on that point (I assume no one would lie about something that incredibly, obviously untrue) does not change the fact that filibusters have effectively unmanned the Democrats' attempt to use their majority positively. Welcome to the two-party system. Until and unless we get rid of it, it'll take a 60-40 or greater (filibuster-proof) majority to actually get anything done in Congress.
Er, actually...
If you don't feel like reading that yourself, the bottom line is that even if you read everything from the GOP's point of view, at least 40 of those "votes" are bullshit.
Since I'm as partisan as you are, I'd say that most attempts to challenge their positions, while they may not be ad hominem attacks, are worthy of only slightly more consideration. Their economic policies may be flawed, but certainly not as flawed as those of the Republican party, and socially speaking most of the issues aren't even really debatable. Gun control is a notable exception, but thinking that it's your right to decide whether men marry other men and women marry other women? Come on, guys.
No...refresh my memory.
I'm pretty sure what took them so long was the fact that the Republicans and every other political party in existence (I'm sure there are exceptions, but I don't know of any) lie out their asses about everything under the sun. It takes a healthy amount of skepticism to get any sort of political truth out of anyone these days.
I mean, of course they shouldn't be watching that much TV in the first place. If nothing else, spend it on the Internet instead, you'll generally get a higher cut of crap. But that isn't the point. The point is that giving misguided parents yet more ways to restrict their kids' freedom and responsibility in the interest of "protection" is a perfect recipe for a generation to come that will be even more ludicrously incompetent than mine, one that rebels against authority with even more force, and one that, to be blunt, has far more fun than I'm comfortable with them having. Censorship and restriction during childhood causes far more problems than it solves (the main problem it solves is keeping parents from having to actually teach their kids to be responsible). We can't force parents to be responsible, but that doesn't mean we can't be a responsible society. Let kids take care of themselves a bit. Parents are going to be overprotective whether the technology and laws support it or not; let's give children a run for their goddamn money.
If only I hadn't posted, you'd be modded funny.
I'm both an atheist and in some ways a socialist.
I resent the association not because it associates something I feel is good with something I feel is bad, but associates two often-misunderstood concepts both of which I believe are theoretically good with a negative connotation.
I found the joke funny and your addition useful, and I now regret killing it with the objection (I'd mod you funny if I hadn't already posted in this thread). However, the association of atheism with communism does no good to either movement. As an atheist, I'm sure you've had your share of negative associations (I've actually been asked, on two occasions, by people who learned I was an atheist, if I was raped as a child). For that reason, I'd like you to refrain from making the association, regardless of whether it is likely to be factually accurate or not.
I swear to God, if you don't Youtube it, I am going to skull fuck you.
That part was on Slashdot a week or two ago, minus the "encouragement" and "cooperation requirements".
Fuck, Iraq would be much better off if Saddam was still in power. That alone (heartbreaking, by the way) should invalidate the invasion.
You're absolutely right about the lack of leftist politics in the United States - we've gone on a massive right-shift that makes any pre-Reagan Republican look downright liberal by today's standards.
No fiscal conservatives, though? You're obviously on the internet, how have you missed out on the collective orgasm over Ron Paul?
Thank you so much for this post, I thought I was the only sane one on slashdot.
Er...have you looked at the composition of the upper echelons of his campaign lately? If not, the sheer number of lobbyists he's had to fire once the media bothered to mention they were lobbyists should give you a hint.
As for other "honorable" decisions of McCain's, besides putting CEOs' sockpuppets into his campaign in overwhelming numbers, how about supporting Bush's theory that unlimited wiretaps are legal?
...Please never, ever insinuate that communism implies atheism again.
DerWulf is right here, but he hasn't included all the reasons chess is unlike war AND THEREFORE very strategically intense. Yes, in chess you have perfect information, but you also have attacker-always-wins, one-move-per-turn, arbitrary movement rules, pawn ascension, and the whole bit with capturing the king to win. Chess is different from war in nearly every way, which is why it's so strategically intense - war is all about economics, tactics, intelligence, and luck. Of course, "tactics" in modern war can encompass an entire country's worth of combat, but it's still tactics, not strategy.
I'm a protoss man, but my idea of "defense" is "army so big the opponent can't defeat it". Of course, high templar make that a lot easier...insert drooling here.
The main reason chess is so strategically intense is that it is so unlike a real war situation. Moving one piece at a time, arbitrary movement rules, attacker-always-wins capturing, set beginning formations...these are things that tend to create a very unrealistic situation, but also one that is very strategy-dependent. If you remove every semblance of tactics, strategy becomes key.
Yes, which is why your comment was interesting, it seems like the more realistic the game is, the less strategy it actually involved.
I've talked to a few military types I know since you made that comment, and they've confirmed for me that in their opinions, the simulations they've played that are most like their combat experiences are also the ones that involve the least strategy.