Grab it at http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/ An interesting title where failure is, while not always fun, at least usually pretty interesting. Google 'boatmurdered' for an example. Not for you overly graphical sorts.
We regret to inform you that the site you listed has is a lame rip of a different meme known as "caturday". We politely request that you do more research on the subject to determine the original source(s) before posting some lame, style-biting site.
Those are nice numbers, and it's always good to see someone beating up corn as an ethanol producer (it sucks, there are _much_ better crops for that)...but...
This isn't ethanol.
They're talking jet fuel, which is a lot closer to kerosene. Different processes, amigo.
To all of you asking "Where would you put a pond the size of X nation!?!"
The same place you'd put a refinery large enough to refine every last drop of oil we use today: NOT IN ONE PLACE, DUMBASSES.
Is it really that hard to imagine that these ponds will be spread out over multiple areas? There are many large cities producing tons of the waste this stuff is supposed to thrive on, so logically the processing plants would be near them. Aside from that, it only makes sense to have your production facilities spread out so that one hurricane or whatever doesn't knock out the entire world's supply of jet fuel.
Along the same line of reasoning as the last reason, it also makes sense to have widely distributed production facilities so that you don't have to ship the final product halfway around the globe to serve, say, Indonesia.
While I like your sig (though I don't recognize it as a reference), what the hell is a Zu-30? The closest I can come up with would be the Tunguska AA system being incorrectly referred to as the ZSU-30-6.
You might consider revising it to ZSU-23 (actually, ZSU-23-4 would be more accurate -- that's the old Shilka, but they're still used IIRC) or 2S6 (Tunguska).
Failing that, could you at least tell me where the line is from?
Interstate commerce clause, because it might possibly be used to transfer goods that have crossed, or might, maybe, almost cross a state line somewhere at some time. Hey, the logic works for plenty of other stuff they apply it to.
No, my argument is that abuse of power is a very real threat, and giving agencies more power/information than is directly relevant works quite contrary to keeping that abuse from happening. I just gave very generalized examples of how abuse can happen. I also pointed out that just because you find it an acceptable compromise, many others won't. Since our founding documents have a huge "deny all" statement at the bottom regarding the rights of the government over the people, the anti-surveillance minority would still be in the clear.
Have a wife? Happen to enjoy oral or anal sex? There have been times and places (and still are, actually) where that's a fairly serious crime. I'm not talking about other countries or the middle ages, either -- right here in the US. In fact, it's a pretty safe bet that you've violated several laws without even knowing about it. You weren't caught because either A) Nobody saw you, or B) Nobody cared.
A law isn't some magical construction based upon something that is universally wrong. Laws (at least here in the US) are drawn up by a very small minority, enforced by a larger minority. As long as the enforcers (police, FBI, etc, and even possibly the military) are willing to enforce a law, it doesn't matter how much the majority dislikes it. Here in the US, there are some checks that would keep things from going from where we are today to instant dictatorship, but a slow transition to a totalitarian government is quite possible. Keeping everyone under watch is a step that would aid that cause.
If you're fine with being filmed all the time, then by all means, have at it. I'm sure there's a firm that is more than happy to do the job, and if ever you're mugged, your house is robbed, whatever...it may very well make finding the culprit afterwards quite a bit simpler, as well as make convicting him or her much easier. Many of us don't find the loss of our privacy, or the granting of further powers to the government worth it.
No, it matters how much power they have to pry into our lives in the name of "finding" that criminal.
The point here isn't who is tasked to catch the criminals, it is what lengths they can go to to find them. For instance, we would be bagging a lot more criminals if everyone were under cameras 24/7, but do you really like the idea of being monitored while you're using the restroom, getting it on with your girlfriend, or macking on your WoW mistress? That's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point.
We're nowhere near that yet, but the point is to keep them from getting that far to begin with. Besides, the only difference between you, I, and criminals is that nobody has written a law to make the things we do illegal yet, or nobody has enforced the laws we have broken.
If you look at the NSA's budget for the last fisical year, they obviously spent too much on amps. Word on the street is that they've got a whole warehouse full of them, and they just can't get rid of them fast enough. Due to internal powerplays by certain top men, though, they're running low on volts. My source says that they've only got about 2 tons left. This is just a clever way to use up that amp surplus to make up for the volt shortage!
Yep. You make a good point, and it is cropping up more and more in the news.
If Iran is left along long enough, there's a really good chance that the citizens of Iran will toss the problematic faction in charge out of power. Even if they try and appear to be failing, it'd make for a much more graceful way for an outside government to step in and give support to get the job done.
The big question here is will it happen before Iran's nuke program gets far enough along to turn something weapons-grade out.
Parent is totally right. Games are murderer training tools! I can vouch for this personally, as years of gaming have made me a bloodthursty homicidal maniac, and I've been quite successful in my killing spree so far. In fact, I've found that murder is amazingly easy to pull off.
Personally, I think finding the X button on the victim is the hardest part. Once you press that, then hit their circle button to hide the body, you're golden.
And some of us don't want cold apartments, or want to spend extra on a seperate heating bill!
I've been heating my place solely with PC's since 2003. Better yet, my apartment is kept at a comfortable temperature as the result of protein folding research. When was the last time your heat source did something to fight cancer?
Your general point was still correct, I just had to be anal and post a counter-example. I don't even own a M1 Garand. That's not to say I wouldn't mind having one, they're certainly solid and have some real history.
Joe Thug isn't going to bother to go to the trouble of making a sten just to steal your wallet. Instead, he's going to put a pointy bit of metal through your gut and take it that way. Gun crime as a whole will go down.
And let's face it, most of the anti-gun crowd cares about one statistic: Gun-related deaths. It's a win to them.
Nevermind the fact that the chance you'll be stabbed or beaten will probably go up. I mean, there are slash-proof hoodies being designed for the UK market. Doesn't that tell you something?
The hardcore criminal population you mention will do exactly as you say. They'll turn to rolling their own firearms, bombs, etc. The same is true for people like the VT murderer, or the Columbine killers. They'll turn to homemade explosives, and things will be _much_ worse. Also, before anyone else argues, don't even think of trying to ban homemade explosives. They're already illegal, and any person that cares to do the research has so many ways of making something that goes boom that you'd literally have to push everyone back to stone-age technology to stop it. It isn't possible.
But does it make you any less likely to be murdered?
There's a lot of BS word games going on with respect to this topic. If you get rid of guns, then yes, gun crime will decrease (assuming you somehow get rid of the illegal guns as well). You can't have X-related crime if X is removed from the system. That doesn't mean you'll be cleaning up crime as a whole, though. Criminals will just move to other means.
If the VT killings had been committed in the UK, it wouldn't have been with guns. Instead, we would be reading about a series of explosions that ruined two buildings and killed who knows how many people.
If you look at US history, _all_ of the recent really big mass-murders were done with something other than guns. One guy burned down a night club with a bit of gas. A couple people blew up a federal building with a large truck bomb. A bunch of guys flew aircraft into a few buildings.
Actually, I'd like to clarify your statement a little further. Generally it's a stock tank + small aux tank setup in small vehicles, though there are some spare tire well tanks available for purchase out there. Depending on how serious the driver is, it can be SVO in the small tank, or the opposite -- diesel in the small tank, used just for warming up/purging the system before shutdown.
I will say that I have encountered an AK that fired a 5.56 NATO round. It did it once, as a result of careless ammunition handling in a scenario where firearms of multiple calibers were in the same area. I'm going to say that the person pulling the trigger was rather lucky, and needless to say it was not repeated.
That's far from filling a mag full and going to town, though...
As inventor of the 700 MHz chunk of the EM spectrum, I agree wholehearedly. I deserve to be compensated for my hard work!
What's that you say? Radio waves not invented? Natural? What? Well, nuts.
I don't like Google, they've been doing too many things that I'm wary about. However, I'm fully behind any sort of reform as far as the FCC and the EM spectrum goes. The FCC has a nasty habit of taking a public resource, claiming they control it, then auctioning off public property to private groups for a profit -- and they're only getting worse about it.
Because enforcing laws doesn't really _stop_ these kinds of things. Best case is that A) A law makes doing something so inconvenient that it is no longer worth the effort for the payoff, and B) offers a way to lock the criminal up after the fact. Case A isn't likely with this sort of thing, because no law is going to make it prohibitively hard to write a keylogger and get it installed on a number of boxes...especially not $450K worth of extra trouble. Case B might stop the idiots from repeating the crime by putting them into prison, but more likely it would just delay them a bit and weed out the retards.
Laws don't stop crime, they just provide a means of cleaning up after the fact.
The treasurer said she is now determined to try to write legislation that could prevent this kind of computer piracy.
Yeah, because laws sure do stop those criminals from, you know, breaking the law.
When are politicians going to wise up and realize that laws don't stop criminals from doing anything, they just offer a means of punishing them _if_ they get caught after the fact? Completely different methods are required to prevent these kind of things -- like proper security procedures, in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Grab it at http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/
An interesting title where failure is, while not always fun, at least usually pretty interesting. Google 'boatmurdered' for an example. Not for you overly graphical sorts.
Dear sirs,
We regret to inform you that the site you listed has is a lame rip of a different meme known as "caturday". We politely request that you do more research on the subject to determine the original source(s) before posting some lame, style-biting site.
-- The Mgmt.
Those are nice numbers, and it's always good to see someone beating up corn as an ethanol producer (it sucks, there are _much_ better crops for that)...but...
This isn't ethanol.
They're talking jet fuel, which is a lot closer to kerosene. Different processes, amigo.
To all of you asking "Where would you put a pond the size of X nation!?!"
The same place you'd put a refinery large enough to refine every last drop of oil we use today: NOT IN ONE PLACE, DUMBASSES.
Is it really that hard to imagine that these ponds will be spread out over multiple areas? There are many large cities producing tons of the waste this stuff is supposed to thrive on, so logically the processing plants would be near them. Aside from that, it only makes sense to have your production facilities spread out so that one hurricane or whatever doesn't knock out the entire world's supply of jet fuel.
Along the same line of reasoning as the last reason, it also makes sense to have widely distributed production facilities so that you don't have to ship the final product halfway around the globe to serve, say, Indonesia.
While I like your sig (though I don't recognize it as a reference), what the hell is a Zu-30? The closest I can come up with would be the Tunguska AA system being incorrectly referred to as the ZSU-30-6.
You might consider revising it to ZSU-23 (actually, ZSU-23-4 would be more accurate -- that's the old Shilka, but they're still used IIRC) or 2S6 (Tunguska).
Failing that, could you at least tell me where the line is from?
Interstate commerce clause, because it might possibly be used to transfer goods that have crossed, or might, maybe, almost cross a state line somewhere at some time. Hey, the logic works for plenty of other stuff they apply it to.
No, my argument is that abuse of power is a very real threat, and giving agencies more power/information than is directly relevant works quite contrary to keeping that abuse from happening. I just gave very generalized examples of how abuse can happen. I also pointed out that just because you find it an acceptable compromise, many others won't. Since our founding documents have a huge "deny all" statement at the bottom regarding the rights of the government over the people, the anti-surveillance minority would still be in the clear.
By whose standards?
Have a wife? Happen to enjoy oral or anal sex? There have been times and places (and still are, actually) where that's a fairly serious crime. I'm not talking about other countries or the middle ages, either -- right here in the US. In fact, it's a pretty safe bet that you've violated several laws without even knowing about it. You weren't caught because either A) Nobody saw you, or B) Nobody cared.
A law isn't some magical construction based upon something that is universally wrong. Laws (at least here in the US) are drawn up by a very small minority, enforced by a larger minority. As long as the enforcers (police, FBI, etc, and even possibly the military) are willing to enforce a law, it doesn't matter how much the majority dislikes it. Here in the US, there are some checks that would keep things from going from where we are today to instant dictatorship, but a slow transition to a totalitarian government is quite possible. Keeping everyone under watch is a step that would aid that cause.
If you're fine with being filmed all the time, then by all means, have at it. I'm sure there's a firm that is more than happy to do the job, and if ever you're mugged, your house is robbed, whatever...it may very well make finding the culprit afterwards quite a bit simpler, as well as make convicting him or her much easier. Many of us don't find the loss of our privacy, or the granting of further powers to the government worth it.
No, it matters how much power they have to pry into our lives in the name of "finding" that criminal.
The point here isn't who is tasked to catch the criminals, it is what lengths they can go to to find them. For instance, we would be bagging a lot more criminals if everyone were under cameras 24/7, but do you really like the idea of being monitored while you're using the restroom, getting it on with your girlfriend, or macking on your WoW mistress? That's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point.
We're nowhere near that yet, but the point is to keep them from getting that far to begin with. Besides, the only difference between you, I, and criminals is that nobody has written a law to make the things we do illegal yet, or nobody has enforced the laws we have broken.
And that's where you're wrong!
If you look at the NSA's budget for the last fisical year, they obviously spent too much on amps. Word on the street is that they've got a whole warehouse full of them, and they just can't get rid of them fast enough. Due to internal powerplays by certain top men, though, they're running low on volts. My source says that they've only got about 2 tons left. This is just a clever way to use up that amp surplus to make up for the volt shortage!
Yep. You make a good point, and it is cropping up more and more in the news.
If Iran is left along long enough, there's a really good chance that the citizens of Iran will toss the problematic faction in charge out of power. Even if they try and appear to be failing, it'd make for a much more graceful way for an outside government to step in and give support to get the job done.
The big question here is will it happen before Iran's nuke program gets far enough along to turn something weapons-grade out.
Parent is totally right. Games are murderer training tools! I can vouch for this personally, as years of gaming have made me a bloodthursty homicidal maniac, and I've been quite successful in my killing spree so far. In fact, I've found that murder is amazingly easy to pull off.
Personally, I think finding the X button on the victim is the hardest part. Once you press that, then hit their circle button to hide the body, you're golden.
And some of us don't want cold apartments, or want to spend extra on a seperate heating bill!
I've been heating my place solely with PC's since 2003. Better yet, my apartment is kept at a comfortable temperature as the result of protein folding research. When was the last time your heat source did something to fight cancer?
Your general point was still correct, I just had to be anal and post a counter-example. I don't even own a M1 Garand. That's not to say I wouldn't mind having one, they're certainly solid and have some real history.
That depends entirely on the criminal.
Joe Thug isn't going to bother to go to the trouble of making a sten just to steal your wallet. Instead, he's going to put a pointy bit of metal through your gut and take it that way. Gun crime as a whole will go down.
And let's face it, most of the anti-gun crowd cares about one statistic: Gun-related deaths. It's a win to them.
Nevermind the fact that the chance you'll be stabbed or beaten will probably go up. I mean, there are slash-proof hoodies being designed for the UK market. Doesn't that tell you something?
The hardcore criminal population you mention will do exactly as you say. They'll turn to rolling their own firearms, bombs, etc. The same is true for people like the VT murderer, or the Columbine killers. They'll turn to homemade explosives, and things will be _much_ worse. Also, before anyone else argues, don't even think of trying to ban homemade explosives. They're already illegal, and any person that cares to do the research has so many ways of making something that goes boom that you'd literally have to push everyone back to stone-age technology to stop it. It isn't possible.
But does it make you any less likely to be murdered?
There's a lot of BS word games going on with respect to this topic. If you get rid of guns, then yes, gun crime will decrease (assuming you somehow get rid of the illegal guns as well). You can't have X-related crime if X is removed from the system. That doesn't mean you'll be cleaning up crime as a whole, though. Criminals will just move to other means.
If the VT killings had been committed in the UK, it wouldn't have been with guns. Instead, we would be reading about a series of explosions that ruined two buildings and killed who knows how many people.
If you look at US history, _all_ of the recent really big mass-murders were done with something other than guns. One guy burned down a night club with a bit of gas. A couple people blew up a federal building with a large truck bomb. A bunch of guys flew aircraft into a few buildings.
My Garand begs to differ.
He really should've known that. I mean, come on, who hasn't heard of the Sumo Killings of 1985?
The worst part is that the killer is still at large.
*badum-ching!*
Your statement reminds me of a joke I once heard...
"In the United States, there's a law on the books for everything but premature ejaculation...and I hear it's coming soon."
Actually, I'd like to clarify your statement a little further. Generally it's a stock tank + small aux tank setup in small vehicles, though there are some spare tire well tanks available for purchase out there. Depending on how serious the driver is, it can be SVO in the small tank, or the opposite -- diesel in the small tank, used just for warming up/purging the system before shutdown.
I will say that I have encountered an AK that fired a 5.56 NATO round. It did it once, as a result of careless ammunition handling in a scenario where firearms of multiple calibers were in the same area. I'm going to say that the person pulling the trigger was rather lucky, and needless to say it was not repeated.
That's far from filling a mag full and going to town, though...
As inventor of the 700 MHz chunk of the EM spectrum, I agree wholehearedly. I deserve to be compensated for my hard work!
What's that you say? Radio waves not invented? Natural? What? Well, nuts.
I don't like Google, they've been doing too many things that I'm wary about. However, I'm fully behind any sort of reform as far as the FCC and the EM spectrum goes. The FCC has a nasty habit of taking a public resource, claiming they control it, then auctioning off public property to private groups for a profit -- and they're only getting worse about it.
Because every now and then he likes to sneak a quick peek at my hairy man-ass through my window. Duh.
Personal attacks: For when you can't really argue, but don't have the good grace or sense to STFU.
Perhaps jcr just has a thing for knowing what he can and cannot do legally, like most every wise person should?
Because enforcing laws doesn't really _stop_ these kinds of things. Best case is that A) A law makes doing something so inconvenient that it is no longer worth the effort for the payoff, and B) offers a way to lock the criminal up after the fact. Case A isn't likely with this sort of thing, because no law is going to make it prohibitively hard to write a keylogger and get it installed on a number of boxes...especially not $450K worth of extra trouble. Case B might stop the idiots from repeating the crime by putting them into prison, but more likely it would just delay them a bit and weed out the retards.
Laws don't stop crime, they just provide a means of cleaning up after the fact.
The treasurer said she is now determined to try to write legislation that could prevent this kind of computer piracy.
Yeah, because laws sure do stop those criminals from, you know, breaking the law.
When are politicians going to wise up and realize that laws don't stop criminals from doing anything, they just offer a means of punishing them _if_ they get caught after the fact? Completely different methods are required to prevent these kind of things -- like proper security procedures, in this case.