Though no modern RTS game exists which is more "strategy" than "realtime" I would like to point out the excellent DoTA as an example of a game where you can't just repeat the same recipe over and over again. It absolutely requires adaptability and good teamwork. I know there are probably other games like this but this is the one I know, and one most people can play since most people have war3 already. I bought war3 for DoTA and it was worth every penny.
You're obviously not a programmer. Computer programming is no more a form of mathematics than engineering is. They both involve maths, but they are not maths.
Even if he was guilty as sin, acted against his own interests and really deserves all of the shit that has landed on him the verdict in this case is bad and scary. It sets a precedent, however justifiable the outcome in this case, that you can prosecute your sysadmin if the system isn't working or if he won't let you have access. I don't care about the facts of this case because they won't matter when the outcome is used to prosecute me unfairly, later. All IT professionals should be worried.
I do not find this apparent at all. Care to be more specific? I suspect that you can't because you know you're talking nonsense, but feel free to attempt to make a logical point. If all you can do is say the equivalent of "nuh uh" then I choose to interpret that as "I acknowledge that you have proven all of my statements to be false and do not wish to waste anybody's time by extending the discussion any further." Silence on your part will also be interpreted in this manner.
Therefore, the law is superseding the wishes of parents, not helping to enforce them.
Only if the wishes of parents are,...
I don't know how you can claim that a system which enforces ONE choice a parent might make, i.e. not allowing their children to purchase certain types of games, enforces "the wishes of parents." What it does is enforce one possible wish, with which you happen to agree. By mandating in the law that only one choice is possible you are (surprise!) removing the ability for parents to choose.
Yes, there really are perfectly good parents who wish to allow their children to purchase M-rated games without the parent being present. You may not like it, but it's true. Whether or not this is something the government ought to mandate is a completely separate issue from whether or not a mandate by the government helps parents enforce their choices or removes the ability for the parent to make certain choices. This law removes the ability for the parents to make certain choices. If you think that's good, fine! Say so. We can talk about whether or not it's good. Do not try to confuse the issue by suggesting that by making the decision for the parents the government has somehow helped enforce the wishes of the parent. It's just not true.
I've gotten teens into R-rated movies before. It doesn't require a parent, just anyone over 18 who is willing to say "Yes, I am taking these kids to see this movie" and show some ID.
It merely prevents a store from selling directly to the child without parental permission.
No. It 'merely' prevents the store from selling directly to the child with or without parental permission. There is no provision in this law for minors buying M-rated games with parental consent. The reason for this is that the originators of the bill would like to ban violent games period and are gleeful at the though that this will make purchasing them more inconvenient.
The store does not have to verify parental permission. The store merely had to verify the age of the buyer. Therefore, the law is superseding the wishes of parents, not helping to enforce them.
When I consider the opinions held by myself, my friends, and virtually every last one of my peers when I was in high school, I'm not convinced that teenagers, on the whole, are really qualified of making any decision that will have an impact on the rest of their lives. We do have to draw the line somewhere though, and I suppose that any age from 16 to 21 is as good as anything.
One of the only ways in which one becomes qualified to make decisions is by making decisions, including bad ones, and dealing with the consequences. My hypothesis is that you learn to make good decisions after the age of 18 because that is the time at which you are allowed to, and required to, begin making decisions of all kinds. You are not necessarily more mature at 18 or 21 than 13, except inasmuch as you have more experience. Having more decision-making experiences sooner would lead to you being more well equipped to make decisions sooner.
We do not, in fact, have to draw the line somewhere (this is a fallacy).
Many states also allow minors to possess and consume alcohol under various circumstances where a responsible adult family member is present. I think you'll find that laws of this sort typically stick within a fairly close tolerance throughout Western cultures.
As I understand it a minor may drink any legal substance if his parent consents and he is on private property where the owner also consents. It may be child abuse if consumption is found to be unsafe (but you probably wont get caught). One of the nice things about the USA is that on private property there are surprisingly few laws that actually apply, and fewer that are enforced if enforcement is against the will of the owner.
So you're okay with hurting the majority of kids by oppressing their freedom knowing full-well that the *really* bad apples will not in any way be restricted? I'll bet you like DRM'd video games, too!
In the USA your equality is based on your political power, which mostly means money and partly means your ability to vote. Children don't vote. No laws are passed with the interests of children in mind. Laws are always passed in the interests of appeasing some parents' notion of what will keep their kids safe. Some parents would no doubt like to ban minors from swearing, too, but it's just a little too silly.
The rights of the actual children are unlikely to be considered in this case. What rights? Constitutional and civil rights before you're 18 seem to only apply to your parents, who effectively own you.
i think your confusing the word "computer" with "user workstation"
QFT.
My n900 has a keyboard and a USB port and lets me run arbitrary code. It's also a smartphone! The iPhone is no different: Its keyboard is software and not hardware, but it still runs arbitrary code. It's just the iPhone OS and associated software that refuses to *install* arbitrary code.
Do you have any idea how many muslims there are in the world, vs. how many have committed terrible acts in the name of their religion? That ratio could be considered "isolated incidents" as well.
Do you know how many religious leaders condoned what e.g. Scott Roeder did? Leaving McVeigh out of it because his motivation was nationalist more than religious.
Yes, some christian leaders were pleased with what he did but none of them publicly applauded his actions. It was always "While we do not condone his actions we are glad that babies are safe now" or words to that effect. I don't doubt that they privately went further but the important thing is that the *official* position of prominent christian leaders is (universally) disapproval.
Officially it's not OK to kill, though christian hawks are always coming up with nuanced interpretations that make war okay. Contrast Islam: It's officially OK to kill as long as it's an infidel. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the latter is inherently worse.
Full disclosure: not an apologist, I don't like religions in any form.
For Muslims degrading Mohammad is more akin to desecrating a grave or religious building
I'm pretty sure I can depict the vatican burning to the ground in a cartoon and get no more serious reaction than angry letters. Desecrating a grave might get you a picket line and some verbal insults. Even if others reacted just as extremely to this 'analogous' situations, where does it say that doing so is right?
I'm not agreeing with their tactics, but really, a little respect for someone's religion might not be too much to ask.
I respect islam as much as I respect any religion (not much). Respecting and treating it as sacred are two very different things. I am *more* inclined toward 'blasphemous' behavior by people like you who ask that I "show some respect"--No! I will however pee on a bible and send you some pictures of jesus and buddha having hot gay sex. If you don't likeit show some respect by not asking me to 'show respect' which is just code for "adhere to the dictates of my religion even if you don't believe them."
If someone defiled a child's grave how would you feel about that? I'd laugh my ass off. If it were the grave of a loved one I'd probably be a little angry and want to catch the guy, maybe even beat him up. But, I'd rather have him punished by the law. If what he did was *talk* about defiling my child's grave, as opposed to actually doing it, I would feel a little bad but *would not seek any kind of retribution, because I don't believe he did anything wrong.*
Three two one hypocrite, right? Applying my sense of right and wrong to the situation and then complaining that I don't like what Muslims are doing because they are applying their sense of right and wrong. I'm expecting them to live up to my standards but saying that I shouldn't live up to theirs, right? Right. The principle I apply here is: My house, my rules. In America, where the South Park creators live, it is in no way illegal or shameful to do what they did, therefore they ought to be under no duress as a result.
Respect is a two way street, if you want someone to respect you and your beliefs you have to be willing to respect them and their belief.
See the above. Everybody *cannot* respect everybody, where "respect" is "follow my code of morality whether I believe it or not" which is what you really mean anyway (no, really, think about it). What I want is to not have my life be in jeopardy unless I'm violating a law in the country where I reside, even if I am violating a law elsewhere. Religious law? If you want it to apply to me write it in to my country's legal code. I think that's as fair and 'respectful' as we can get.
I am entitled to configure my HTTP client in any way I like. So are you. Anyone trying to tell you that you are not so entitled is not your friend. The sooner everyone wakes up to this reality--that the users are the kings, not the content providers--the better off we'll all be.
I don't have a problem with sites doing this. I won't use them (and nobody else will either) but if your site has enough value that you don't drive all users away, and not enough value to actually charge for something, then go right ahead. Just don't complain about not having users.
Slashdot Mirror
This approach was tried and discarded early in Wikipedia history. For many reasons it does not work.
To clarify, here "alien" is "immigrant" and not an alien like Robin Williams' Mork of Mork & Mindy.
"And that is where they fail," as Morhpeus might say.
I believe that was Yoda: "And that is why you fail." - Episode 5.
Though no modern RTS game exists which is more "strategy" than "realtime" I would like to point out the excellent DoTA as an example of a game where you can't just repeat the same recipe over and over again. It absolutely requires adaptability and good teamwork. I know there are probably other games like this but this is the one I know, and one most people can play since most people have war3 already. I bought war3 for DoTA and it was worth every penny.
You're obviously not a programmer. Computer programming is no more a form of mathematics than engineering is. They both involve maths, but they are not maths.
This is a common misconception. I recommend you read An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers because it walks through the whole thing. It's long but worthwhile.
tl;dr software is math, no exceptions.
Even if he was guilty as sin, acted against his own interests and really deserves all of the shit that has landed on him the verdict in this case is bad and scary. It sets a precedent, however justifiable the outcome in this case, that you can prosecute your sysadmin if the system isn't working or if he won't let you have access. I don't care about the facts of this case because they won't matter when the outcome is used to prosecute me unfairly, later. All IT professionals should be worried.
I do not find this apparent at all. Care to be more specific? I suspect that you can't because you know you're talking nonsense, but feel free to attempt to make a logical point. If all you can do is say the equivalent of "nuh uh" then I choose to interpret that as "I acknowledge that you have proven all of my statements to be false and do not wish to waste anybody's time by extending the discussion any further." Silence on your part will also be interpreted in this manner.
Flame on.
Therefore, the law is superseding the wishes of parents, not helping to enforce them.
Only if the wishes of parents are, ...
I don't know how you can claim that a system which enforces ONE choice a parent might make, i.e. not allowing their children to purchase certain types of games, enforces "the wishes of parents." What it does is enforce one possible wish, with which you happen to agree. By mandating in the law that only one choice is possible you are (surprise!) removing the ability for parents to choose.
Yes, there really are perfectly good parents who wish to allow their children to purchase M-rated games without the parent being present. You may not like it, but it's true. Whether or not this is something the government ought to mandate is a completely separate issue from whether or not a mandate by the government helps parents enforce their choices or removes the ability for the parent to make certain choices. This law removes the ability for the parents to make certain choices. If you think that's good, fine! Say so. We can talk about whether or not it's good. Do not try to confuse the issue by suggesting that by making the decision for the parents the government has somehow helped enforce the wishes of the parent. It's just not true.
I've gotten teens into R-rated movies before. It doesn't require a parent, just anyone over 18 who is willing to say "Yes, I am taking these kids to see this movie" and show some ID.
Bans against selling alcohol to minors don't specify "gin" or "vodka". The form is irrelevant.
Alcohol is bad. We ban selling alcohol to people under 21. The form is irrelevant, so gin and vodka and beer are all banned.
Violence is bad. We ban selling violent things to people under 18. The form is irrelevant, so video games and movies and boxing are all banned.
Do you see the problem here?
It merely prevents a store from selling directly to the child without parental permission.
No. It 'merely' prevents the store from selling directly to the child with or without parental permission. There is no provision in this law for minors buying M-rated games with parental consent. The reason for this is that the originators of the bill would like to ban violent games period and are gleeful at the though that this will make purchasing them more inconvenient.
The store does not have to verify parental permission. The store merely had to verify the age of the buyer. Therefore, the law is superseding the wishes of parents, not helping to enforce them.
When I consider the opinions held by myself, my friends, and virtually every last one of my peers when I was in high school, I'm not convinced that teenagers, on the whole, are really qualified of making any decision that will have an impact on the rest of their lives. We do have to draw the line somewhere though, and I suppose that any age from 16 to 21 is as good as anything.
One of the only ways in which one becomes qualified to make decisions is by making decisions, including bad ones, and dealing with the consequences. My hypothesis is that you learn to make good decisions after the age of 18 because that is the time at which you are allowed to, and required to, begin making decisions of all kinds. You are not necessarily more mature at 18 or 21 than 13, except inasmuch as you have more experience. Having more decision-making experiences sooner would lead to you being more well equipped to make decisions sooner.
We do not, in fact, have to draw the line somewhere (this is a fallacy).
Many states also allow minors to possess and consume alcohol under various circumstances where a responsible adult family member is present. I think you'll find that laws of this sort typically stick within a fairly close tolerance throughout Western cultures.
As I understand it a minor may drink any legal substance if his parent consents and he is on private property where the owner also consents. It may be child abuse if consumption is found to be unsafe (but you probably wont get caught). One of the nice things about the USA is that on private property there are surprisingly few laws that actually apply, and fewer that are enforced if enforcement is against the will of the owner.
So you're okay with hurting the majority of kids by oppressing their freedom knowing full-well that the *really* bad apples will not in any way be restricted? I'll bet you like DRM'd video games, too!
+1 The Fucking Truth
Yes there is: Smoke marijuana.
Inasmuch as "media influence" is blamed in cases involving criminal behavior in children this should be taken as evidence of parental neglect.
In the USA your equality is based on your political power, which mostly means money and partly means your ability to vote. Children don't vote. No laws are passed with the interests of children in mind. Laws are always passed in the interests of appeasing some parents' notion of what will keep their kids safe. Some parents would no doubt like to ban minors from swearing, too, but it's just a little too silly.
The rights of the actual children are unlikely to be considered in this case. What rights? Constitutional and civil rights before you're 18 seem to only apply to your parents, who effectively own you.
Not a troll, just the bitter truth.
I've power cycled XP boxes during all stages of boot and never had to reinstall as a result. Your story doesn't hold up.
Android is pretty much Google's effort at doing to the smartphone what Microsoft did to the PC.
Except that MS made it "Any hadware, Microsoft Windows"
Google is trying to make it "Any hardware, Any vendor's Android." There's a world of difference between those two positions.
i think your confusing the word "computer" with "user workstation"
QFT.
My n900 has a keyboard and a USB port and lets me run arbitrary code. It's also a smartphone! The iPhone is no different: Its keyboard is software and not hardware, but it still runs arbitrary code. It's just the iPhone OS and associated software that refuses to *install* arbitrary code.
Godwin's law.
Thread over!
You lose.
Do you have any idea how many muslims there are in the world, vs. how many have committed terrible acts in the name of their religion? That ratio could be considered "isolated incidents" as well.
Do you know how many religious leaders condoned what e.g. Scott Roeder did? Leaving McVeigh out of it because his motivation was nationalist more than religious.
Yes, some christian leaders were pleased with what he did but none of them publicly applauded his actions. It was always "While we do not condone his actions we are glad that babies are safe now" or words to that effect. I don't doubt that they privately went further but the important thing is that the *official* position of prominent christian leaders is (universally) disapproval.
Officially it's not OK to kill, though christian hawks are always coming up with nuanced interpretations that make war okay. Contrast Islam: It's officially OK to kill as long as it's an infidel. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the latter is inherently worse.
Full disclosure: not an apologist, I don't like religions in any form.
For Muslims degrading Mohammad is more akin to desecrating a grave or religious building
I'm pretty sure I can depict the vatican burning to the ground in a cartoon and get no more serious reaction than angry letters. Desecrating a grave might get you a picket line and some verbal insults. Even if others reacted just as extremely to this 'analogous' situations, where does it say that doing so is right?
I'm not agreeing with their tactics, but really, a little respect for someone's religion might not be too much to ask.
I respect islam as much as I respect any religion (not much). Respecting and treating it as sacred are two very different things. I am *more* inclined toward 'blasphemous' behavior by people like you who ask that I "show some respect"--No! I will however pee on a bible and send you some pictures of jesus and buddha having hot gay sex. If you don't likeit show some respect by not asking me to 'show respect' which is just code for "adhere to the dictates of my religion even if you don't believe them."
If someone defiled a child's grave how would you feel about that?
I'd laugh my ass off. If it were the grave of a loved one I'd probably be a little angry and want to catch the guy, maybe even beat him up. But, I'd rather have him punished by the law. If what he did was *talk* about defiling my child's grave, as opposed to actually doing it, I would feel a little bad but *would not seek any kind of retribution, because I don't believe he did anything wrong.*
Three two one hypocrite, right? Applying my sense of right and wrong to the situation and then complaining that I don't like what Muslims are doing because they are applying their sense of right and wrong. I'm expecting them to live up to my standards but saying that I shouldn't live up to theirs, right? Right. The principle I apply here is: My house, my rules. In America, where the South Park creators live, it is in no way illegal or shameful to do what they did, therefore they ought to be under no duress as a result.
Respect is a two way street, if you want someone to respect you and your beliefs you have to be willing to respect them and their belief.
See the above. Everybody *cannot* respect everybody, where "respect" is "follow my code of morality whether I believe it or not" which is what you really mean anyway (no, really, think about it). What I want is to not have my life be in jeopardy unless I'm violating a law in the country where I reside, even if I am violating a law elsewhere. Religious law? If you want it to apply to me write it in to my country's legal code. I think that's as fair and 'respectful' as we can get.
I am entitled to configure my HTTP client in any way I like. So are you. Anyone trying to tell you that you are not so entitled is not your friend. The sooner everyone wakes up to this reality--that the users are the kings, not the content providers--the better off we'll all be.
I don't have a problem with sites doing this. I won't use them (and nobody else will either) but if your site has enough value that you don't drive all users away, and not enough value to actually charge for something, then go right ahead. Just don't complain about not having users.