The US isn't being run by Bush. It's being run by Obama (who the Europeans gave a Nobel Prize to). Bush lost the election; it's time putting the blame where it belongs.
. I think as an upper limit only inflicting harm proportional to the harm done to you is a pretty reasonable ethical and moral standard regardless of your ethical/moral/religious views.
I don't accept that standard.
The reason is that sometimes the amount of harm done is reduced through no desire of the attacker. Your argument says that the better your bomb shelters are, the less you are justified in attacking an enemy (since by using the bomb shelters, you reduced the casualty count on your side, and if there are fewer casualties on your side, proportional force means you are not allowed to kill as many of the enemy).
This isn't just theoretical. Israel is often the victim of this unbalanced standard. Palestinians lob missiles at Israel. The bomb shelters are too good, so Israel gets told they are using "disproportionate force" when fighting back and killing more Palestinians than are killed by the missiles.
I'd suggest a different standard: you're allowed to use whatever force on the people causing the harm to stop them from doing you harm.
You're ignoring some of the violence in the Bible. For instance, look at the book of Revelations and how it speaks approvingly of war and torture. Certainly Christians can easily take these parts literally as well as the other parts. (And even if the torture is a metaphor, the comparison still implies that torture is good.)
Besides, the US is currently run by Obama. He's not a Christian hawk, but he managed to attack Libya without Congressional approval, and the only reason we're out of Iraq is that the Iraqis insisted on the Bush timetable against his wishes.
I used to cross the street at a crosswalk. But then it occurred to me that I could cross the street in the middle of the road. Sure, everyone warned me that the cars were coming by fast and that it was after a curve in the road so it may be hard for them to see pedestrians who weren't at the crosswalk. But I did it. I got to my destination much faster! Not only that, I know a guy who crossed at the crosswalk and got hit by a car anyway.
The answer to that is likely to be "my berserk warrior wants to kill as many goblins as he can". Then you need to translate it into game terms, which still means figuring out which of the 40 skills kills the most goblins.
It seems to me that while some skills are being selected by the character (such as spells), some are not. The player is more like a writer--some things the writer writes are 'what would the character do" but others are "what would I want to happen to the character". When the player chooses to have the character use a powerful move, that's the writer deciding that the character should be striking a mighty blow at this exact moment. In-character, the character is always trying his best to strike mighty blows and is not making decisions at all.
It's always been a bunch of leftists that happened to have a few people who did things vaguely related to atomic science. Even back when the leftist issue of the day actually was nuclear weapons, knowing the physics had nothing to do with knowing how close the world was to destruction by it--that's a political question, not a scientific question.
The number of minutes is completely arbitrary and is just stated as a number because numbers sound accurate to the general public. And it's particularly ludicrous when you compare the numbers to previous years--do you *really* think we're closer to destruction than we were in 1969?
1) It's not this week. it's 2008. You made the headline part of the sentence without realizing it's no longer appropriate. 2) Despite the misleading headline, if you read the article, it mentions that she already got a civil divorce and all the religious court did against her will was to declare a religious divorce as well.
That's the difference between suggesting and proving.
There are certainly circumstances where it is no fault of your own that you don't have the degree. But from an employer's point of view, it's not the way to bet. All in all, it is more likely that someone who doesn't a degree has less dedication and commitment than someone who does. This is true even if there are some exceptions--it's a statement about the odds, not a statement about what is true every time.
Currently, most if not all home versions of anti-virus programs are poorly written and create a lot of system load. (Business versions are better because businesses won't put up with this nonsense.)
If anti-virus is built into Windows, and has the same problems, people will (justifiably) blame *Windows* for the system load caused by the antivirus. We've seen with Vista that even with the Windows monopoly, having Windows produce too big a system load will not be tolerated. So having MS supply antivirus may be a blessing in disguise, since we may actually get reasonable antivirus programs.
(Of course, if you can't turn it off, that brings its own set of problems.)
You can make a case for the claim being misleading because it implies most people are at risk of dehydration from a normal diet., but the reason you quote is nonsense. They said that water doesn't reduce the risk of dehydration because it reduces dehydration itself rather than reducing the risk of it.
It is literally true that water prevents dehydration, but the implication of the statement is that given a person with a normal diet, adding water to the diet reduces the risk of dehydration. Which is false because a normal diet is already enough to prevent dehydration and adding a bottle of water brings no extra benefit.
Anything that you can get for free, they can get for free. If they can get it for free, it's automatically unsuitable as a gift.
Even if the software is just a bonus for the flash drives, and you're also giving them a real gift and the flash drive is just the equivalent of a candy cane, it's still a bad idea. Free software is something you're interested in. You don't give people gifts that you're interested in, or that are meant to convince them to do things that you approve of. That kind of gift is self-serving and arrogant no matter how good the cause; just giving them actual candy canes would probably be received better.
And then it turns out that corporations are not allowed to make the employee wear shoes because there's a hippie-owned store 1000 miles away who only hires the barefoot--and the law didn't include any clauses about the hindrance being common, nearby, or even in the same field of business.
The fact that you personally don't want to sell it (or trade it) is irrelevant. The fact that other people do want to do that affects the market and ultimately the price.
Also, even if you may not want to sell your games used, you can certainly *buy* your games used. If you want a 10 year old game that's pretty much going to be the only way to get one.
Because, of course, Greenpeace's activities are fully legal.
Think of EDF's hacking as civil disobedience aimed at Greenpeace. They're violating the law in a nonviolent (but potentially harmful) way to fight someone that they don't like. Greenpeace is also in the business of violating the law in a nonviolent (but potentially harmful) way to fight someone that they don't like. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
-- Along with the versioning scheme comes lack of support for older versions -- The version scheme is a pain in the neck for add-ons, which depend on versions -- Normal version numbers give the user information; the version number tells us whether it has had major features, bug fixes, etc. Firefox's versioning has the effect of concealing this information from the user.
"Bonus" in an executive context often means "payment that is like salary, but is given in a lump sum at a particular time". It does not necessarily mean "payment given for exceptional performance".
A statement of the form "nothing makes it easier than (brand)" is ad copy. It's a statement which means "we can't say it's better than the others, so we're going to make a statement which implies it's better than the others while it may only mean that all brands are basically the same" (after all, if they're the same, then nothing else is better).
Answer: because developers got a stupid idea, and no matter how many times the users tell them it's stupid, they won't listen. I suppose technically this isn't hating the users, but in practice the results are indistinguishable--perfectly reasonable concerns from users go unheeded.
True, it did have bad science (you can't see the Comet Empire from light years away, since the light would take years to get to you), but it was a breakthrough at the time.
Slashdot Mirror
Felony doesn't necessarily include violent crime. Google "felony" "littering", for instance.
The US isn't being run by Bush. It's being run by Obama (who the Europeans gave a Nobel Prize to). Bush lost the election; it's time putting the blame where it belongs.
I don't accept that standard.
The reason is that sometimes the amount of harm done is reduced through no desire of the attacker. Your argument says that the better your bomb shelters are, the less you are justified in attacking an enemy (since by using the bomb shelters, you reduced the casualty count on your side, and if there are fewer casualties on your side, proportional force means you are not allowed to kill as many of the enemy).
This isn't just theoretical. Israel is often the victim of this unbalanced standard. Palestinians lob missiles at Israel. The bomb shelters are too good, so Israel gets told they are using "disproportionate force" when fighting back and killing more Palestinians than are killed by the missiles.
I'd suggest a different standard: you're allowed to use whatever force on the people causing the harm to stop them from doing you harm.
You're ignoring some of the violence in the Bible. For instance, look at the book of Revelations and how it speaks approvingly of war and torture. Certainly Christians can easily take these parts literally as well as the other parts. (And even if the torture is a metaphor, the comparison still implies that torture is good.)
Besides, the US is currently run by Obama. He's not a Christian hawk, but he managed to attack Libya without Congressional approval, and the only reason we're out of Iraq is that the Iraqis insisted on the Bush timetable against his wishes.
I used to cross the street at a crosswalk. But then it occurred to me that I could cross the street in the middle of the road. Sure, everyone warned me that the cars were coming by fast and that it was after a curve in the road so it may be hard for them to see pedestrians who weren't at the crosswalk. But I did it. I got to my destination much faster! Not only that, I know a guy who crossed at the crosswalk and got hit by a car anyway.
Iron Storm wasn't a FPS, it was a strategy game, but it allowed you to play as the Japanese or the Nazis and conquer America.
The answer to that is likely to be "my berserk warrior wants to kill as many goblins as he can". Then you need to translate it into game terms, which still means figuring out which of the 40 skills kills the most goblins.
It seems to me that while some skills are being selected by the character (such as spells), some are not. The player is more like a writer--some things the writer writes are 'what would the character do" but others are "what would I want to happen to the character". When the player chooses to have the character use a powerful move, that's the writer deciding that the character should be striking a mighty blow at this exact moment. In-character, the character is always trying his best to strike mighty blows and is not making decisions at all.
It's always been a bunch of leftists that happened to have a few people who did things vaguely related to atomic science. Even back when the leftist issue of the day actually was nuclear weapons, knowing the physics had nothing to do with knowing how close the world was to destruction by it--that's a political question, not a scientific question.
The number of minutes is completely arbitrary and is just stated as a number because numbers sound accurate to the general public. And it's particularly ludicrous when you compare the numbers to previous years--do you *really* think we're closer to destruction than we were in 1969?
1) It's not this week. it's 2008. You made the headline part of the sentence without realizing it's no longer appropriate.
2) Despite the misleading headline, if you read the article, it mentions that she already got a civil divorce and all the religious court did against her will was to declare a religious divorce as well.
That's the difference between suggesting and proving.
There are certainly circumstances where it is no fault of your own that you don't have the degree. But from an employer's point of view, it's not the way to bet. All in all, it is more likely that someone who doesn't a degree has less dedication and commitment than someone who does. This is true even if there are some exceptions--it's a statement about the odds, not a statement about what is true every time.
Currently, most if not all home versions of anti-virus programs are poorly written and create a lot of system load. (Business versions are better because businesses won't put up with this nonsense.)
If anti-virus is built into Windows, and has the same problems, people will (justifiably) blame *Windows* for the system load caused by the antivirus. We've seen with Vista that even with the Windows monopoly, having Windows produce too big a system load will not be tolerated. So having MS supply antivirus may be a blessing in disguise, since we may actually get reasonable antivirus programs.
(Of course, if you can't turn it off, that brings its own set of problems.)
You can make a case for the claim being misleading because it implies most people are at risk of dehydration from a normal diet., but the reason you quote is nonsense. They said that water doesn't reduce the risk of dehydration because it reduces dehydration itself rather than reducing the risk of it.
It is literally true that water prevents dehydration, but the implication of the statement is that given a person with a normal diet, adding water to the diet reduces the risk of dehydration. Which is false because a normal diet is already enough to prevent dehydration and adding a bottle of water brings no extra benefit.
Anything that you can get for free, they can get for free. If they can get it for free, it's automatically unsuitable as a gift.
Even if the software is just a bonus for the flash drives, and you're also giving them a real gift and the flash drive is just the equivalent of a candy cane, it's still a bad idea. Free software is something you're interested in. You don't give people gifts that you're interested in, or that are meant to convince them to do things that you approve of. That kind of gift is self-serving and arrogant no matter how good the cause; just giving them actual candy canes would probably be received better.
Cool, the New York Times can no longer write editorials supporting candidates or use any money to slant newspaper stories in favor of Democrats?
Ah, I forget. Media corporations are exempt.
And then it turns out that corporations are not allowed to make the employee wear shoes because there's a hippie-owned store 1000 miles away who only hires the barefoot--and the law didn't include any clauses about the hindrance being common, nearby, or even in the same field of business.
The fact that you personally don't want to sell it (or trade it) is irrelevant. The fact that other people do want to do that affects the market and ultimately the price.
Also, even if you may not want to sell your games used, you can certainly *buy* your games used. If you want a 10 year old game that's pretty much going to be the only way to get one.
Because, of course, Greenpeace's activities are fully legal.
Think of EDF's hacking as civil disobedience aimed at Greenpeace. They're violating the law in a nonviolent (but potentially harmful) way to fight someone that they don't like. Greenpeace is also in the business of violating the law in a nonviolent (but potentially harmful) way to fight someone that they don't like. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
-- Along with the versioning scheme comes lack of support for older versions
-- The version scheme is a pain in the neck for add-ons, which depend on versions
-- Normal version numbers give the user information; the version number tells us whether it has had major features, bug fixes, etc. Firefox's versioning has the effect of concealing this information from the user.
"Bonus" in an executive context often means "payment that is like salary, but is given in a lump sum at a particular time". It does not necessarily mean "payment given for exceptional performance".
A statement of the form "nothing makes it easier than (brand)" is ad copy. It's a statement which means "we can't say it's better than the others, so we're going to make a statement which implies it's better than the others while it may only mean that all brands are basically the same" (after all, if they're the same, then nothing else is better).
Arrest you for interfering with a police investigation.
The cerebal palsy is not mentioned in Slashdot's TFA, but if you Google it, you can find that she really does have it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057419/Judge-William-Adams-beat-disabled-daughter-Hillary-video-WONT-charged.html
Furthermore she says she waited seven years because she feared for her safety.
Then why is the Gimp still named the Gimp?
Answer: because developers got a stupid idea, and no matter how many times the users tell them it's stupid, they won't listen. I suppose technically this isn't hating the users, but in practice the results are indistinguishable--perfectly reasonable concerns from users go unheeded.
The original version of Star Blazers was a national institution in Japan and is still remembered to this day. They just did an animated movie ( http://anbudom.net/2010/11/03/space-battleship-yamato-revival/ ), and even a live action movie.
True, it did have bad science (you can't see the Comet Empire from light years away, since the light would take years to get to you), but it was a breakthrough at the time.