The issue is not having the player encounter senseless violence. The problem here is that the game developers chose to have the player act out senseless violence.
While it's just a game, "playing" this warps your mind a bit - admit it.
Real estate prices doubled in tripled in some areas of our the United States between 1999 and 2005, while wages remained close to the same.
I don't pretend to understand the formal model that was used to make mortgage investments. But HOW did the model not include some check on the underlying ability of the homeowner's ability to pay for the houses?
The ratio of home mortgage amount/owner's income is the PE of mortgage lending. How was it ignored?
Going forward, if you are convicted of a felony in the US, in addition to submitting fingerprints and DNA, you will now be forced to take a turn on the catwalk - move it for the cameras!
So... um, you've got a "terrorist" under tight enough surveillance that you can build a "gait profile", but you're not arresting or just outright executing them?
Admittedly, I support this effort. Once complete, the DHS can take its rightful place as the Ministry of Funny Names and Walks.
Several times now my father in law has asked me to help him fix his computer because "it's running slow". You would not believe what a mess of malware he gets hit with by browsing the web and running whatever attachments all his friends send him.
Even if the banking site is secure, your average user is taking a huge risk doing banking on any PC hooked up to the internet. They just don't understand what is running on their PC. They have no good way to identify that there is malware running, or identify what the malware is doing.
Even if the site is perfect, it cannot protect you from the malware that infect many PCs.
If the computer has no tells and can read no tells, then I would think it would be at a disadvantage against a human player who has no tells but can read opponents tells.
If there are 5 players, including 4 humans and one computer, and one human can read tells and hide his own tells, that player should dominate the other humans. The computer may play statistically perfect poker, but it cannot take advantage of the human tells.
Maybe at first the in-vitro meat would be more costly than regular meat. In which case it would only appeal to vegans, and remain small scale.
At some point though, if it became cheaper to produce than regular meat, the result would be a disappearance of farm animals similar to the disappearance of horses and donkeys. What would be the motivation for supporting farm animals if we derive no benefit from them? Rich foodies would be willing to pay a premium for the real-thing. But in general, farm animals would disappear, consumed and not replaced.
As the parent states, our relationship with farm animals is symbiotic. When we no longer need farm animals, they will cease to exist.
"I just stay invisible on IM most of the time. If someone is on that I want to talk to, I can message them"
So to paraphrase: "I am going to stay invisible, but I can always contact others when they are available, [because I can see they are visible]".
I think the fair thing would be to for my IM client to make me invisible to anyone who is not himself visible.
But, I already pay for a music subscription server - it's called "Rhapsody" (listen.com)!
My fees to Rhapsody already go to the music companies. So why should the RIAA collect AGAIN from me?
JP
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is not having the player encounter senseless violence. The problem here is that the game developers chose to have the player act out senseless violence. While it's just a game, "playing" this warps your mind a bit - admit it.
So this would be like AOL buying Time Warner? (I know it was the reverse). These kinds of odd combinations are the signs of executive minds run amock.
If this submission didn't have 100 replies, I wouldn't be reading it.
Yes, I do have 10,000 sheep. But this land is common, I have a right to let them all graze there if I want to.
Real estate prices doubled in tripled in some areas of our the United States between 1999 and 2005, while wages remained close to the same.
I don't pretend to understand the formal model that was used to make mortgage investments. But HOW did the model not include some check on the underlying ability of the homeowner's ability to pay for the houses?
The ratio of home mortgage amount/owner's income is the PE of mortgage lending. How was it ignored?
So... um, you've got a "terrorist" under tight enough surveillance that you can build a "gait profile", but you're not arresting or just outright executing them?
Admittedly, I support this effort. Once complete, the DHS can take its rightful place as the Ministry of Funny Names and Walks.
c.
If you are not in the US, how does the US have jurisdiction to perform a search?
Even if the banking site is secure, your average user is taking a huge risk doing banking on any PC hooked up to the internet. They just don't understand what is running on their PC. They have no good way to identify that there is malware running, or identify what the malware is doing.
Even if the site is perfect, it cannot protect you from the malware that infect many PCs.
If there are 5 players, including 4 humans and one computer, and one human can read tells and hide his own tells, that player should dominate the other humans. The computer may play statistically perfect poker, but it cannot take advantage of the human tells.
Maybe at first the in-vitro meat would be more costly than regular meat. In which case it would only appeal to vegans, and remain small scale.
At some point though, if it became cheaper to produce than regular meat, the result would be a disappearance of farm animals similar to the disappearance of horses and donkeys. What would be the motivation for supporting farm animals if we derive no benefit from them? Rich foodies would be willing to pay a premium for the real-thing. But in general, farm animals would disappear, consumed and not replaced. As the parent states, our relationship with farm animals is symbiotic. When we no longer need farm animals, they will cease to exist.
"I just stay invisible on IM most of the time. If someone is on that I want to talk to, I can message them" So to paraphrase: "I am going to stay invisible, but I can always contact others when they are available, [because I can see they are visible]". I think the fair thing would be to for my IM client to make me invisible to anyone who is not himself visible.
But, I already pay for a music subscription server - it's called "Rhapsody" (listen.com)! My fees to Rhapsody already go to the music companies. So why should the RIAA collect AGAIN from me? JP
This article is from 2006. Surely there's more recent news, even about this topic?