By this logic you can make almost anyone into a killer. The guy was a pussy and committed suicide. The decision was made by that man. Madoff didn't point a gun at him and shoot him, Madoff didn't brainwash him into committing suicide like a cult, etc. A guy made some bad business decision and decided to chicken out. Madoff was a crook, not a murderer. By this logic if someone commits suicide because Microsoft loses money and they had everything invested in Microsoft is the Linux community responsible for their deaths because they weren't improving Microsoft's sales?
I think the lesson here is "don't put your eggs in one basket" or if you are going to put them in one basket make sure its something that can't ever equal zero like commodities or precious metals.
Re:Halo is About Multi-Player
on
Review: Halo: Reach
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Um, I've got a ton of NES games from 25 years ago and they still run perfectly fine. I even have a working NES, it might be a bit temperamental at times, but it works. I also have one of the remake top-loading NES/Famicom systems and all my games play just fine there. Heck, I've got a working 2600 system and games from the 70s!
Yeah, cartridges are going to be more reliable than CDs/DVDs but DVDs/CDs are easier to rip. But I still have some CDs from the late 80s that still work just fine after 20 some odd years.
Due to the ease of making universal disk drives, the optical disk isn't going to go away anytime soon unless SSDs become cheap enough to put "buyable" software on and movies.
No, Halo probably won't be done anymore by Bungie because its too restrictive. Essentially MS owns all the IP related to Halo meaning MS can do whatever they want to restrict Bungie. So if Bungie wants to make a Halo game for the Wii/PS3/DS/PSP/iPhone/etc. it all has to go through Microsoft which can reject it. Bungie as an independent company doesn't want those restrictions because they threaten its success by preventing it from expanding. So if Bungie develops a new series, its a lot better for them and MS will turn to another developer for Halo.
Re:Halo is About Multi-Player
on
Review: Halo: Reach
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The full benefits of multiplayer don't last forever on console games. Yeah, it might be fun for a few years but then either the servers get shut off or the matchmaking system doesn't work well and you are waiting 15 mins to get into a game.
Yeah, there always is system-link or physical multiplayer but most games now for multiplayer focus it online.
25 years from now, the single player mode will still be available along with local multiplayer but Xbox live will not. If you want a game you can enjoy 25 years from now, the single player mode is important.
I've had some versions of Flash that were actually rather solid, then they fix a few security holes then I'm suddenly using 100% CPU on YouTube videos and so my choices are to downgrade and get a security hole or keep having a nearly unusable plugin.
I don't "hate" using the CLI, I just prefer using a GUI for most things. CLIs are good for some things, but editing configuration files using vi is simply pointless when it should just be an option in the program. Same thing with things like disk checking and partition editing.
The thing is, Ubuntu server isn't trying to necessarily capture the marketshare of "serious" servers because those are already well-entrenched with contracts but rather competing with offerings like Windows Home Server.
Ubuntu is without a doubt the best distro for most users. Yeah, I know I could have more customization with Debian, yeah, I know I could be faster if I ran Gentoo, yeah, I know I could be more on the bleeding edge if I used Fedora, but when it comes down to it, Ubuntu is the best distro for most people. I -like- the fact there is a forum where I can post a question and it is answered in about 15 minutes, I like the fact I can do 99.999% of the things I need to do without using the CLI, and I like the fact that I have a lot of software in the repository.
And the best part is there isn't really any sacrifice. Is there anything that I can't do with Ubuntu that I can do with Debian? Just because I don't have to use a CLI for everything doesn't mean I can't if I want, etc.
Yeah, so Ubuntu doesn't have the nerd "cred" that I'd be getting if I ran Gentoo, but I have a usable system that is nearly infinitely customizable without having to sacrifice usability.
The idea of "Post-9/11" is bullshit. For one it is his own property he isn't endangering others. Secondly, the world isn't safer due to all this security theater and imperialistic wars. The thing that changed on 9/11 is now if someone tries to hijack a plane people are going to tackle them and pin them to the ground. People now associate hijackings with that they are going to die no matter what they do, and not the idea that they should comply with the hijackers, wind up in Cuba and be on a plane home in a day with a wild story to tell to the media. No, if someone even remotely tries to attack a plane the passengers will prevent that. -THAT- is why we haven't had another 9/11.
Its not because he's rich, its because its his own fucking plane and quite honestly he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property, just like there are rules in buses and taxis that don't apply to your own personal cars.
Voting really doesn't mean shit with a universal "right" to vote and a lack of limited government.
I'd wager that for every informed vote that gets cast there are 5 votes by people who don't even know what they are voting for but vote automatically for a republican/democrat because thats what they've always voted for.
Hell, my guess is there are even more people who vote who were just told by their union who to vote for and they do it.
Democracy is a good thing, but it only works with informed voters along with limited government. Otherwise, its no better than mob justice.
Yeah, then somehow your computer contains CP or something. Digital evidence with technologically illiterate lawmakers and judges is a bad thing because it can be manipulated very, very easily.
Parties are principled. Individuals aren't. It becomes clear that many candidates don't know how they stand on certain issues, which is really worrying. Why would you vote for someone who doesn't know where they stand on basic issues? Most parties have comprehensive platforms which they follow.
It is a lot easier to bribe and individual than it is to bribe an entire organization. For example, if I vote for a Republican am I getting someone like Ron Paul or someone like John McCain or someone like George W Bush? On the other hand, if I vote for a European-style party, I generally know where they stand and they do a pretty good job at standing for those issues.
Monolithic entities are a good thing because they actually stand for something and you can then choose the party of your like rather than voting for the "lesser evil", for example, someone who actually -wants- green politics can vote for a green party rather than having to appeal to the democrats/republicans. Similarly, people who want a libertarian form of government can actually vote for someone who shares their beliefs rather than voting for the "lesser evil". Etc.
Proportional representation allows everyone's voice to be heard rather than shutting out their voices and frustrating voters.
I really think the US might be the only country that needs massive amounts of judicial review. It seems to be the only country that can both shit on its own constitution and have a lack of true accountability for its politicians due to the two party system. Many other countries have proportional representation which allows people to have a greater amount of control of their laws because they will almost always have a handful of representatives for even the most obscure parties.
This is going to give MS some serious tax breaks because they can "donate" all the software they want because software is infinite.
And the TFA gets something wrong.
The blanket license for software builds on a software-donation program Microsoft already has, Smith said. While the company has donated US $390 million worth of software to NGOs in the past year, many nonprofits aren't aware of the program, he wrote. The new blanket license will last until 2012, and Microsoft hopes to move any interested NGOs to the existing software donation program by then, he said.
MS didn't donate anything and they shouldn't get tax breaks (like the likely will) for donating non-existent products. So in other words MS can do nothing and rack up massive tax deductions for doing something that doesn't leave them with anything less.
Ok, so they ruled correctly one time (and it was pretty damn obvious that it was the right interpretation) but think of all the other times they've been wrong, one notable one that comes to mind is Korematsu v. United States along with New Jersey v. T.L.O. and that is just what popped in my head, I'm sure if I dug down deeper I could find a lot of other cases that they ruled incorrectly.
No it doesn't, especially when the laws are so absurd to begin with. You could say the same thing about "piracy" that somehow because they are "willing" to break copyright law, they will break other laws too. But I can guarantee you that if you sample the people who "pirate" the vast, vast majority have no criminal record and are law-abiding people.
There are many cases where the law, not the people need to change.
Yeah, the fact is, you shouldn't need to have any body parts scanned to do most activities it amazes me we somehow think its "normal" to be scanned when entering or exiting a country. These things are peaceful activities that cause no harm. Our xenophobia is taken to extremes lately. This idea that entering or exiting a country is considered to be hostile is laughable, especially since things like the "Terror Watch List", secret things that anyone could be on and be unable to leave the country because they are suspected "terrorists".
Right... because the courts have had a fantastic record of not screwing things up....
The courts will probably rule that you have no expectation of your privacy when you are outside of your own home like they have ruled for just about everything else. Remember, this is the same court that allows warrant-less GPS devices to be placed on your cars. (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-27/justice/oregon.gps.surveillance_1_gps-device-appeals-chief-judge-alex-kozinski?_s=PM:CRIME)
The idea that courts will clear things up is laughable. They almost never rule in favor of freedom.
Why can the DHS and the rest of the government spend so much money on fences and stuff but don't strike at the root of illegal immigration: The fact that legal immigration is full of problems. I really don't see any base for this xenophobia, if we wanted to get rid of illegal immigration, we should make legal immigration easy to do.
It is a bit like the piracy debate, make it a pain to buy legitimate content and suddenly piracy is attractive. Make the legitimate content easier to buy and give no advantage to piracy other than the price and then piracy isn't that big of a deal.
The problems isn't with the merits of Irises vs Fingerprints it is simply scary that we even have a debate over it. I think we all know where this is heading, to a place with no economic and no civil freedoms because everything is tracked. The ability to choose anonymity is a vital part of freedom and the government has very few places to mandate the lack of anonymity for law-abiding, peaceful citizens.
The -entire- early gaming industry was based off of clones. And yes, clones a million times more similar than FarmVille is to FarmTown. Of course, we don't really remember them too much because we have biases towards the originals.
All governments share two common agendas, one is to maintain the power of its rule. This is particularly evident in all of the "qualifiers" to what should be basic rights. You have freedom of speech (so long as you don't offend us), freedom from torture (unless you are a "terrorist"), the right to know what you are charged for (unless you are a "terrorist"), etc.
The second agenda is to maintain the basic structure of the political environment. It is not advantageous for the democrats/republicans in the US to introduce an amendment that would bring proportional representation or otherwise disrupt their power balance. Neither side really wants reforms in tax structure, debate over currency, etc.
If the two major parties can distract the masses with issues that don't really matter they can share the power for the future.
If you can't convince your countrymen that the government is going the wrong direction, and get them to vote it a different way, maybe you are the one in the wrong.
Good luck getting most people to even vote, let alone go beyond their general apathy.
And that reasoning is laughable, the main point of freedom in a democracy is limited government first, that is the real pillar of freedom, democracy is second. Democracy without limited government is nothing more than mob justice. Your reasoning falls apart when you try to use it in a case. For example, is lynching justified? After all, everyone agrees with it!
A free government depends on limited government more than it depends on democracy .
Slashdot Mirror
By this logic you can make almost anyone into a killer. The guy was a pussy and committed suicide. The decision was made by that man. Madoff didn't point a gun at him and shoot him, Madoff didn't brainwash him into committing suicide like a cult, etc. A guy made some bad business decision and decided to chicken out. Madoff was a crook, not a murderer. By this logic if someone commits suicide because Microsoft loses money and they had everything invested in Microsoft is the Linux community responsible for their deaths because they weren't improving Microsoft's sales?
I think the lesson here is "don't put your eggs in one basket" or if you are going to put them in one basket make sure its something that can't ever equal zero like commodities or precious metals.
Um, I've got a ton of NES games from 25 years ago and they still run perfectly fine. I even have a working NES, it might be a bit temperamental at times, but it works. I also have one of the remake top-loading NES/Famicom systems and all my games play just fine there. Heck, I've got a working 2600 system and games from the 70s!
Yeah, cartridges are going to be more reliable than CDs/DVDs but DVDs/CDs are easier to rip. But I still have some CDs from the late 80s that still work just fine after 20 some odd years.
Due to the ease of making universal disk drives, the optical disk isn't going to go away anytime soon unless SSDs become cheap enough to put "buyable" software on and movies.
No, Halo probably won't be done anymore by Bungie because its too restrictive. Essentially MS owns all the IP related to Halo meaning MS can do whatever they want to restrict Bungie. So if Bungie wants to make a Halo game for the Wii/PS3/DS/PSP/iPhone/etc. it all has to go through Microsoft which can reject it. Bungie as an independent company doesn't want those restrictions because they threaten its success by preventing it from expanding. So if Bungie develops a new series, its a lot better for them and MS will turn to another developer for Halo.
The full benefits of multiplayer don't last forever on console games. Yeah, it might be fun for a few years but then either the servers get shut off or the matchmaking system doesn't work well and you are waiting 15 mins to get into a game.
Yeah, there always is system-link or physical multiplayer but most games now for multiplayer focus it online.
25 years from now, the single player mode will still be available along with local multiplayer but Xbox live will not. If you want a game you can enjoy 25 years from now, the single player mode is important.
....Depending on the version.
I've had some versions of Flash that were actually rather solid, then they fix a few security holes then I'm suddenly using 100% CPU on YouTube videos and so my choices are to downgrade and get a security hole or keep having a nearly unusable plugin.
I don't "hate" using the CLI, I just prefer using a GUI for most things. CLIs are good for some things, but editing configuration files using vi is simply pointless when it should just be an option in the program. Same thing with things like disk checking and partition editing.
The thing is, Ubuntu server isn't trying to necessarily capture the marketshare of "serious" servers because those are already well-entrenched with contracts but rather competing with offerings like Windows Home Server.
Ubuntu is without a doubt the best distro for most users. Yeah, I know I could have more customization with Debian, yeah, I know I could be faster if I ran Gentoo, yeah, I know I could be more on the bleeding edge if I used Fedora, but when it comes down to it, Ubuntu is the best distro for most people. I -like- the fact there is a forum where I can post a question and it is answered in about 15 minutes, I like the fact I can do 99.999% of the things I need to do without using the CLI, and I like the fact that I have a lot of software in the repository.
And the best part is there isn't really any sacrifice. Is there anything that I can't do with Ubuntu that I can do with Debian? Just because I don't have to use a CLI for everything doesn't mean I can't if I want, etc.
Yeah, so Ubuntu doesn't have the nerd "cred" that I'd be getting if I ran Gentoo, but I have a usable system that is nearly infinitely customizable without having to sacrifice usability.
Ok, so if 4 isn't four, what is it? Five? Six?
The idea of "Post-9/11" is bullshit. For one it is his own property he isn't endangering others. Secondly, the world isn't safer due to all this security theater and imperialistic wars. The thing that changed on 9/11 is now if someone tries to hijack a plane people are going to tackle them and pin them to the ground. People now associate hijackings with that they are going to die no matter what they do, and not the idea that they should comply with the hijackers, wind up in Cuba and be on a plane home in a day with a wild story to tell to the media. No, if someone even remotely tries to attack a plane the passengers will prevent that. -THAT- is why we haven't had another 9/11.
Its not because he's rich, its because its his own fucking plane and quite honestly he should be able to do whatever he wants to with his own property, just like there are rules in buses and taxis that don't apply to your own personal cars.
Voting really doesn't mean shit with a universal "right" to vote and a lack of limited government.
I'd wager that for every informed vote that gets cast there are 5 votes by people who don't even know what they are voting for but vote automatically for a republican/democrat because thats what they've always voted for.
Hell, my guess is there are even more people who vote who were just told by their union who to vote for and they do it.
Democracy is a good thing, but it only works with informed voters along with limited government. Otherwise, its no better than mob justice.
Yeah, then somehow your computer contains CP or something. Digital evidence with technologically illiterate lawmakers and judges is a bad thing because it can be manipulated very, very easily.
Parties are principled. Individuals aren't. It becomes clear that many candidates don't know how they stand on certain issues, which is really worrying. Why would you vote for someone who doesn't know where they stand on basic issues? Most parties have comprehensive platforms which they follow.
It is a lot easier to bribe and individual than it is to bribe an entire organization. For example, if I vote for a Republican am I getting someone like Ron Paul or someone like John McCain or someone like George W Bush? On the other hand, if I vote for a European-style party, I generally know where they stand and they do a pretty good job at standing for those issues.
Monolithic entities are a good thing because they actually stand for something and you can then choose the party of your like rather than voting for the "lesser evil", for example, someone who actually -wants- green politics can vote for a green party rather than having to appeal to the democrats/republicans. Similarly, people who want a libertarian form of government can actually vote for someone who shares their beliefs rather than voting for the "lesser evil". Etc.
Proportional representation allows everyone's voice to be heard rather than shutting out their voices and frustrating voters.
I really think the US might be the only country that needs massive amounts of judicial review. It seems to be the only country that can both shit on its own constitution and have a lack of true accountability for its politicians due to the two party system. Many other countries have proportional representation which allows people to have a greater amount of control of their laws because they will almost always have a handful of representatives for even the most obscure parties.
And the TFA gets something wrong.
The blanket license for software builds on a software-donation program Microsoft already has, Smith said. While the company has donated US $390 million worth of software to NGOs in the past year, many nonprofits aren't aware of the program, he wrote. The new blanket license will last until 2012, and Microsoft hopes to move any interested NGOs to the existing software donation program by then, he said.
MS didn't donate anything and they shouldn't get tax breaks (like the likely will) for donating non-existent products. So in other words MS can do nothing and rack up massive tax deductions for doing something that doesn't leave them with anything less.
Ok, so they ruled correctly one time (and it was pretty damn obvious that it was the right interpretation) but think of all the other times they've been wrong, one notable one that comes to mind is Korematsu v. United States along with New Jersey v. T.L.O. and that is just what popped in my head, I'm sure if I dug down deeper I could find a lot of other cases that they ruled incorrectly.
No it doesn't, especially when the laws are so absurd to begin with. You could say the same thing about "piracy" that somehow because they are "willing" to break copyright law, they will break other laws too. But I can guarantee you that if you sample the people who "pirate" the vast, vast majority have no criminal record and are law-abiding people.
There are many cases where the law, not the people need to change.
Yeah, the fact is, you shouldn't need to have any body parts scanned to do most activities it amazes me we somehow think its "normal" to be scanned when entering or exiting a country. These things are peaceful activities that cause no harm. Our xenophobia is taken to extremes lately. This idea that entering or exiting a country is considered to be hostile is laughable, especially since things like the "Terror Watch List", secret things that anyone could be on and be unable to leave the country because they are suspected "terrorists".
Right... because the courts have had a fantastic record of not screwing things up....
The courts will probably rule that you have no expectation of your privacy when you are outside of your own home like they have ruled for just about everything else. Remember, this is the same court that allows warrant-less GPS devices to be placed on your cars. (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-27/justice/oregon.gps.surveillance_1_gps-device-appeals-chief-judge-alex-kozinski?_s=PM:CRIME)
The idea that courts will clear things up is laughable. They almost never rule in favor of freedom.
Why can the DHS and the rest of the government spend so much money on fences and stuff but don't strike at the root of illegal immigration: The fact that legal immigration is full of problems. I really don't see any base for this xenophobia, if we wanted to get rid of illegal immigration, we should make legal immigration easy to do.
It is a bit like the piracy debate, make it a pain to buy legitimate content and suddenly piracy is attractive. Make the legitimate content easier to buy and give no advantage to piracy other than the price and then piracy isn't that big of a deal.
The problems isn't with the merits of Irises vs Fingerprints it is simply scary that we even have a debate over it. I think we all know where this is heading, to a place with no economic and no civil freedoms because everything is tracked. The ability to choose anonymity is a vital part of freedom and the government has very few places to mandate the lack of anonymity for law-abiding, peaceful citizens.
You should really read this article: http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3147544
The -entire- early gaming industry was based off of clones. And yes, clones a million times more similar than FarmVille is to FarmTown. Of course, we don't really remember them too much because we have biases towards the originals.
The second agenda is to maintain the basic structure of the political environment. It is not advantageous for the democrats/republicans in the US to introduce an amendment that would bring proportional representation or otherwise disrupt their power balance. Neither side really wants reforms in tax structure, debate over currency, etc.
If the two major parties can distract the masses with issues that don't really matter they can share the power for the future.
If you can't convince your countrymen that the government is going the wrong direction, and get them to vote it a different way, maybe you are the one in the wrong.
Good luck getting most people to even vote, let alone go beyond their general apathy.
And that reasoning is laughable, the main point of freedom in a democracy is limited government first, that is the real pillar of freedom, democracy is second. Democracy without limited government is nothing more than mob justice. Your reasoning falls apart when you try to use it in a case. For example, is lynching justified? After all, everyone agrees with it!
A free government depends on limited government more than it depends on democracy .