If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'enforcing the rules as written,' then yeah. If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'puting hundreds of Black voters *back onto* the voting roles after they were purged for sharing a last name with a convicted felon,' then yeah. If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'not counting mail-in ballots that don't meet the requirements to be mail-in ballots,' then yeah.
The whole idea of the constitution is to limit the government.
No. No, no, no, no. NO.
It's the exact opposite. The Constitution is a list of exactly what the government *is* allowed to do. The gov't starts with exactly ZERO power. Various abilities and powers are then granted to it. If it ain't on the list, it ain't in the gov't's power.
This is a HUGE difference than 'the gov't can do anything, EXCEPT what we list here.'
Think of a constitution as a firewall; a properly written one starts out 'deny all' then has very specific 'allow' statements.
Yes, but this is by design. Unless you can show me a document somewhere that states content *is* transferable from hardware to hardware, which they're now failing to live up to...?
Quite honestly, this is all the same as somebody hacking up some GPL'd software they'd downloaded, then acting all surprised that they were expected to then release the source. Live Content has always been tied to the hardware, then the Live account.
Yes, this had a hell of an unexpected consequence when they had defective consoles, but it's an awfully easy fix, one would think; revoke the old license, issue a new license.
I hate to be one of those 'just google it!' people, but, unfortunately, this is the first thing that comes up for 'xbox 360 hard drive transfer' on a Google search. Emphasis mine to illustrate that this isn't Elite-specific.
This kit lets you transfer content from your Xbox 360® 20GB hard drive to another Xbox 360 20GB or Xbox 360 120GB hard drive.
Sidious! Sidious! SIDIOUS! Lalalalalalalalalala, lalalalalalalalala, lalalalalalalalaLALALALALALALALAla! Da-da-da-da-dadadada! (the animated version of Beetlejuice).
I think the idea is that 10 years pass between Ep. 2 and Ep. 3, and the idea is that Anakin and Obi-Wan are *re*united for the mission to save the Chancellor; after 2 but before 3, Anakin becomes a Knight, and the two of them split up to go do their own things; Obi-Wan, having successfully trained a Padawan into a Knight is awarded the rank of Master, given command of an Army, and off he goes. Anakin, meanwhile, now a Knight, is sent off as more of a captain than a general.
This would also explain some of his anger about not being given the rank of Master in episode 3; one of the requirements, again, being the successful raising of a Padawan.
Yup, no way to extract a key from somebody. Unless, of course, you code in some sort of 'duress' code that opens the door but triggers a silent alarm or something. But you're still not required to be alive at this point.
And if you're doing it often enough, you're installing from a custom CD with the various service packs and vital patches already slipstreamed in, and letting your local SUS or SMS server deliver the non-critical-but-still-needed patches overnight or whatever, right?
but I do think that the definition of a transaction is nebulous in the on-line realm.
No, the definition of a transaction is perfectly straightforward, same as face-to-face; goods or services exchanged for money. It's quite purposefully kept really simple; until such time as the two things are actually exchanged, both sides can walk.
Put in simpler language, an advertisement isn't an offer to sell; it's a statement of an opening negotiating position. With, in Western common usage, an implicit understanding that any actual negotiating will be rejected.
In other words, if I'm advertising selling a car at $10,000, I have in no way, shape, or form actually *agreed* to sell the car. If this was the case, you could never upsell, never offer a discount, an incentive, options, add-ons, or anything of the like.
What about truth in buying? It's legally recognized that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch; a $500 product listed for $450 is a deal; listed for $400 is an amazing deal. Listed for $350 is starting to push it; listed for $31 means that there's a screw-up somewhere. There's no meeting of the minds, blah blah blah.
So yea, clearly an issue for people. But to have the candidates pulling the race/sex card? That's intolerable, because they're playing to prejudices that damn well do exist, and if they're willing to do that to win, then they're scum. We've seen enough of that shit.
Is it? And I'm being serious here. Is it 'racist' or 'wrong' for, say, a Black candidate to point out that, being Black, they probably have a better handle on 'Black issues' than a non-Black candidate? Or that a female candidate might be a bit more inclined to deal with 'female' issues, like, say, promoting Woman's Health, possibly revising sexual assault laws, maybe working toward getting rid of a notional 'glass ceiling?'
In other words, is it racist to say 'I'm not voting for the Black candidate, because he's Black (and I, by inference, am not) versus is it racist to say 'I'm voting for the Black candidate because he's Black (and I, by inference, am) versus 'I'm voting for the Black candidate (even though I, in this case, am not Black) because it's 'time for a change' and we've never had a Black President'?
Seriously. What's the difference between voting for, say, an industrialist, because you're in industry, voting for, say, a pro-'tough on crime' candidate, because you're of a 'tough on crime' mindset, and voting for a Black candidate, because you're Black?
But the election *IS* about race. And gender, for that matter.
All the coverage I've seen and heard points out that Hillary gets the woman vote, Obama gets the Black vote, Hillary gets the Latino vote, Obama gets the 'educated' vote (which, according to all the news outlets, is separate from the Black vote) and that it's a big surprise in Mass, because people rejected Ted Kennedy's endorsement.
In other words, according to American news coverage, it's expected to vote along racial and gender lines, and a suprise when people don't vote for who they're told to vote for.
Haven't read the comments, and maybe this has already been said, but:
Instead of Gnolls just being Orcs with Hyena masks on, they'll now apparently fight with pack tactics and cowardly tricks. Giving flavour to the opposition seems to be the basic idea: off-the-rack encounters will no longer feel so rote.
If you need specific instructions to tell you that one race might act/fight differently than another race, remind me not to game with you.
With the 1.61 patch, Civ4 no longer freezes, but it like in WineX, it does not recognize the cd labled "Play / Disc 2 when in the drive. An improvement, but still not good enough.
As an aside, and others have pointed out, the first pressing of Civ4 (I have this pressing, and have this problem) the discs were mislabelled. You need to have the 'install' disc in the drive to play, not the 'play' disc.
Why are Americans so parochial? Just because the public in the US has no common sense doesn't mean it's the the same in the rest of the world.
Honestly? Because, historically, they could.
America, through a happy accident of history, has never really been invaded. Never really been subjugated. As one author who's name I forget, but it's something French, puts it, they never had to kill their King; the American Revolution was a lot less personal, than, say, the French.
Nor has America ever really needed another country's help, mostly as a consequence of having never really been invaded. But boy, America's done a lot of bailing other countries out.
You'd think that, but upon recounts they still come out different. Here's one instance The same happened in the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida. These were manual recounts with observers from both parties and they still came out different every time.
Then somebody's either a) a retard, or b) purposefully screwing up. Or, possibly, c) each time, they used a different method/judgement on what did and didn't constitute 'spoiled ballots.' Which, again, is a solved problem.
To paraphrase Peter Griffith, 'it's easier (and more accountable) than you're making it.'
Even an 'honest' hand counting isn't infallible. Every vote I've heard of with a manual hand count has had different results every time. A properly made machine will produce the proper count every time.
See, I'd say the exact opposite. How can you say that a machine will produce the proper count, when you have no idea what it's actually doing? Yet with paper ballots, it's trivial to a) count how many you started with, b) count how many you handed out, c) count how many you had left over, thus eliminating the barest possibility of ballot stuffing, then d) have a representative from each party in a locked room when the elections official cracks open the ballot box, and everybody keeps their own tally as each ballot is pulled out and shown to the room?
Slashdot Mirror
If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'enforcing the rules as written,' then yeah. If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'puting hundreds of Black voters *back onto* the voting roles after they were purged for sharing a last name with a convicted felon,' then yeah. If by 'changing the rules' you mean 'not counting mail-in ballots that don't meet the requirements to be mail-in ballots,' then yeah.
No. No, no, no, no. NO.
It's the exact opposite. The Constitution is a list of exactly what the government *is* allowed to do. The gov't starts with exactly ZERO power. Various abilities and powers are then granted to it. If it ain't on the list, it ain't in the gov't's power.
This is a HUGE difference than 'the gov't can do anything, EXCEPT what we list here.'
Think of a constitution as a firewall; a properly written one starts out 'deny all' then has very specific 'allow' statements.
Well, that's the crux, in'nit. Old codgers vote. Adolescents can't.
Yes, but this is by design. Unless you can show me a document somewhere that states content *is* transferable from hardware to hardware, which they're now failing to live up to...?
Quite honestly, this is all the same as somebody hacking up some GPL'd software they'd downloaded, then acting all surprised that they were expected to then release the source. Live Content has always been tied to the hardware, then the Live account.
Yes, this had a hell of an unexpected consequence when they had defective consoles, but it's an awfully easy fix, one would think; revoke the old license, issue a new license.
I hate to be one of those 'just google it!' people, but, unfortunately, this is the first thing that comes up for 'xbox 360 hard drive transfer' on a Google search. Emphasis mine to illustrate that this isn't Elite-specific.
Darth No-Heart with his idiot apprentice Beastly?
My Pet Jedi! He's a real Jedi friend!
My little Jedi, my little Jedi!
Sidious! Sidious! SIDIOUS! Lalalalalalalalalala, lalalalalalalalala, lalalalalalalalaLALALALALALALALAla! Da-da-da-da-dadadada! (the animated version of Beetlejuice).
We are the e-e-e-e-e-e-eeeeewoks, we're the spirits of the forest grove!
I think the idea is that 10 years pass between Ep. 2 and Ep. 3, and the idea is that Anakin and Obi-Wan are *re*united for the mission to save the Chancellor; after 2 but before 3, Anakin becomes a Knight, and the two of them split up to go do their own things; Obi-Wan, having successfully trained a Padawan into a Knight is awarded the rank of Master, given command of an Army, and off he goes. Anakin, meanwhile, now a Knight, is sent off as more of a captain than a general.
This would also explain some of his anger about not being given the rank of Master in episode 3; one of the requirements, again, being the successful raising of a Padawan.
Yup, no way to extract a key from somebody. Unless, of course, you code in some sort of 'duress' code that opens the door but triggers a silent alarm or something. But you're still not required to be alive at this point.
that's when you use
And if you're doing it often enough, you're installing from a custom CD with the various service packs and vital patches already slipstreamed in, and letting your local SUS or SMS server deliver the non-critical-but-still-needed patches overnight or whatever, right?
No, the definition of a transaction is perfectly straightforward, same as face-to-face; goods or services exchanged for money. It's quite purposefully kept really simple; until such time as the two things are actually exchanged, both sides can walk.
Put in simpler language, an advertisement isn't an offer to sell; it's a statement of an opening negotiating position. With, in Western common usage, an implicit understanding that any actual negotiating will be rejected.
In other words, if I'm advertising selling a car at $10,000, I have in no way, shape, or form actually *agreed* to sell the car. If this was the case, you could never upsell, never offer a discount, an incentive, options, add-ons, or anything of the like.
What about truth in buying? It's legally recognized that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch; a $500 product listed for $450 is a deal; listed for $400 is an amazing deal. Listed for $350 is starting to push it; listed for $31 means that there's a screw-up somewhere. There's no meeting of the minds, blah blah blah.
Is it? And I'm being serious here. Is it 'racist' or 'wrong' for, say, a Black candidate to point out that, being Black, they probably have a better handle on 'Black issues' than a non-Black candidate? Or that a female candidate might be a bit more inclined to deal with 'female' issues, like, say, promoting Woman's Health, possibly revising sexual assault laws, maybe working toward getting rid of a notional 'glass ceiling?'
In other words, is it racist to say 'I'm not voting for the Black candidate, because he's Black (and I, by inference, am not) versus is it racist to say 'I'm voting for the Black candidate because he's Black (and I, by inference, am) versus 'I'm voting for the Black candidate (even though I, in this case, am not Black) because it's 'time for a change' and we've never had a Black President'?
Seriously. What's the difference between voting for, say, an industrialist, because you're in industry, voting for, say, a pro-'tough on crime' candidate, because you're of a 'tough on crime' mindset, and voting for a Black candidate, because you're Black?
But the election *IS* about race. And gender, for that matter.
All the coverage I've seen and heard points out that Hillary gets the woman vote, Obama gets the Black vote, Hillary gets the Latino vote, Obama gets the 'educated' vote (which, according to all the news outlets, is separate from the Black vote) and that it's a big surprise in Mass, because people rejected Ted Kennedy's endorsement.
In other words, according to American news coverage, it's expected to vote along racial and gender lines, and a suprise when people don't vote for who they're told to vote for.
Binary logic - yes, no.
Quarternary logic - Yes, probably, possibly, no.
Hmmm. 50 percent of the choices there are indeterminate; better stick with the trinary 'yes, maybe, no' model.
Haven't read the comments, and maybe this has already been said, but:
If you need specific instructions to tell you that one race might act/fight differently than another race, remind me not to game with you.
As an aside, and others have pointed out, the first pressing of Civ4 (I have this pressing, and have this problem) the discs were mislabelled. You need to have the 'install' disc in the drive to play, not the 'play' disc.
That's the one! The Culture Code is indeed the book, and it's a pretty interesting read.
Honestly? Because, historically, they could.
America, through a happy accident of history, has never really been invaded. Never really been subjugated. As one author who's name I forget, but it's something French, puts it, they never had to kill their King; the American Revolution was a lot less personal, than, say, the French.
Nor has America ever really needed another country's help, mostly as a consequence of having never really been invaded. But boy, America's done a lot of bailing other countries out.
Unfortunately, the machines are designed by humans.
Then somebody's either a) a retard, or b) purposefully screwing up. Or, possibly, c) each time, they used a different method/judgement on what did and didn't constitute 'spoiled ballots.' Which, again, is a solved problem.
To paraphrase Peter Griffith, 'it's easier (and more accountable) than you're making it.'
See, I'd say the exact opposite. How can you say that a machine will produce the proper count, when you have no idea what it's actually doing? Yet with paper ballots, it's trivial to a) count how many you started with, b) count how many you handed out, c) count how many you had left over, thus eliminating the barest possibility of ballot stuffing, then d) have a representative from each party in a locked room when the elections official cracks open the ballot box, and everybody keeps their own tally as each ballot is pulled out and shown to the room?
I think that was just a hideous choice of phrasing; 'not naturally occuring' would be better.