The "him" in my post was referring to the MP that was attacked.
Why she did something crazy is largely (if not entirely) immaterial. She tried to hurt somebody, so she should take responsibility.
If somebody is intentionally citing violence, they're as guilty of causing harm as the person holding the weapon. So if this cleric did so (I haven't watched the video because I have better things to do, like eat fatty foods and take dumps), then he's guilty too.
The proper response to what happened to him is to lock up the "nutter", as you crazy Brits say. Trying to block access to the material said nutter watched before doing something stupid is shifting the blame. The person did something stupid because they're crazy. Saying that "the video made them do it" is removing personal responsibility. Someone is crazy enough to think they can stab an MP in broad daylight? They go to jail.
Odd, I'd think materials and labor would be the area that would see the greatest drop in price. Maybe someone will find a cheaper way to produce the mirrors or motors, and automation could make the labor worlds cheaper. The control and power lines probably aren't really huge areas for research and development, but since I'm not in that industry, I can't say that for certain.
That can't be the only requirement for a game to be good. I mean, someone could write a Whack-A-Mole simulator that dialed out to Anthony & Victor's Discount Kneecappings, but didn't require online activation, CD-keys longer than my state motto, or any of the other zany ideas game companies have tried in the past.
Let's assume, for a moment, that we will one day see an implantable device that acts as a "mechanical kidney". What I'm imagining is something similar to my cousin's ileostomy (he has Crohn's Disease), in which one kidney is replaced with a filtering device that either dumps waste into an externally connected bag, or holds it in a surgically implanted reservoir until it can be emptied. Something that complicated would almost certainly need some level of control, and I'm sure there are a thousand and one things that could be analyzed in real time.
"Mr. Pratt, this is Packmonger Insurance calling to inform you that your payment is officially past due. Per the terms of your plan's contract, we are reducing your blood filtration rate by 10%. This is enough of a decrease to cause low-risk symptoms of renal failure, without irreparably damaging your other major organs. Please consider your impending itching, joint aches, and/or increased urination an incentive to pay on time in the future. Thank you, and have a wonderful day."
This is just an attempt to rationalize things. I work in the printer industry. We do much larger printers (from really huge things like billboards to really small stuff like printing on commemorative coins), and a large part of that involves testing different ink formulas. Most of the experimental inks we test with cost us at most a couple of dollars per liter, and customers that buy our printers usually spend pennies per liter. The obvious argument is that purchasing ink in bulk makes that possible, and that packaging smaller amounts increases the cost per unit. Even taking that into account, desktop ink is wildly overpriced.
Technically, saying "Haskell is easier to read than C" is a specious statement because it assumes that it's easier to read universally. I can find even one person for whom that's not true (I happen to be such a person).
Therefore, the statement is misleading, I win, and your children are ugly.
My point was that just saying "Haskell is easier to read than C" is a specious statement. I don't know both languages, but I'm a programmer, and the syntax of Haskell (a language I don't know) is harder for me to figure out than Ruby (another language I don't know).
"Easier to read" is subjective, and generally only applies if the reader has spent a fairly significant amount of time dealing with the syntax. Coming from years of C/C++/C#/Python, I can tell you that Haskell is about as easy to read as a set of VCR instructions written in Japanese and translated to English by a blind Venezuelan with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
Unfortunately, that means that people paying more are subsidizing those paying less. The money for those rebate checks has to come from somewhere, and the most likely would be the money paid by others under the same scheme. I don't want people to starve, but I don't think that means the government should mug me at gunpoint and give my money to somebody else.
Taxation is just another way of demanding money with menaces.
So they give you something that they want to read wirelessly, then give you something to keep it from being read wirelessly? Ah, government thought in action.
Wasn't this explained not long after the inclusion of RFID chips in passports announced? I just don't understand how it could have been ignored by the government for this long. I'm not this kind of hacker, but even my brief exposure to RFID at work (for inventory management) made me think that it would make a really awful system for sensitive data.
Slashdot Mirror
The "him" in my post was referring to the MP that was attacked. Why she did something crazy is largely (if not entirely) immaterial. She tried to hurt somebody, so she should take responsibility. If somebody is intentionally citing violence, they're as guilty of causing harm as the person holding the weapon. So if this cleric did so (I haven't watched the video because I have better things to do, like eat fatty foods and take dumps), then he's guilty too.
The proper response to what happened to him is to lock up the "nutter", as you crazy Brits say. Trying to block access to the material said nutter watched before doing something stupid is shifting the blame. The person did something stupid because they're crazy. Saying that "the video made them do it" is removing personal responsibility. Someone is crazy enough to think they can stab an MP in broad daylight? They go to jail.
Thetan hair is one of the Colonel's secret herbs.
Odd, I'd think materials and labor would be the area that would see the greatest drop in price. Maybe someone will find a cheaper way to produce the mirrors or motors, and automation could make the labor worlds cheaper. The control and power lines probably aren't really huge areas for research and development, but since I'm not in that industry, I can't say that for certain.
And there won't be additional research and innovation in nuclear power production in that same period?
Sounds like we're on our way to semuta addicts...
Al Roker's ass is toast.
Vala
Lack of LAN play != DRM
That can't be the only requirement for a game to be good. I mean, someone could write a Whack-A-Mole simulator that dialed out to Anthony & Victor's Discount Kneecappings, but didn't require online activation, CD-keys longer than my state motto, or any of the other zany ideas game companies have tried in the past.
Nope. News to me. Looks pretty awful, really.
Odd. I must have missed that one.
Ye gods, I've got one even scarier.
Let's assume, for a moment, that we will one day see an implantable device that acts as a "mechanical kidney". What I'm imagining is something similar to my cousin's ileostomy (he has Crohn's Disease), in which one kidney is replaced with a filtering device that either dumps waste into an externally connected bag, or holds it in a surgically implanted reservoir until it can be emptied. Something that complicated would almost certainly need some level of control, and I'm sure there are a thousand and one things that could be analyzed in real time.
"Mr. Pratt, this is Packmonger Insurance calling to inform you that your payment is officially past due. Per the terms of your plan's contract, we are reducing your blood filtration rate by 10%. This is enough of a decrease to cause low-risk symptoms of renal failure, without irreparably damaging your other major organs. Please consider your impending itching, joint aches, and/or increased urination an incentive to pay on time in the future. Thank you, and have a wonderful day."
This is just an attempt to rationalize things. I work in the printer industry. We do much larger printers (from really huge things like billboards to really small stuff like printing on commemorative coins), and a large part of that involves testing different ink formulas. Most of the experimental inks we test with cost us at most a couple of dollars per liter, and customers that buy our printers usually spend pennies per liter. The obvious argument is that purchasing ink in bulk makes that possible, and that packaging smaller amounts increases the cost per unit. Even taking that into account, desktop ink is wildly overpriced.
Captain Trips becomes Captain Claps.
feldicus
Indeed, can we be choosy about the choice chosen?
feldicus
Technically, saying "Haskell is easier to read than C" is a specious statement because it assumes that it's easier to read universally. I can find even one person for whom that's not true (I happen to be such a person).
Therefore, the statement is misleading, I win, and your children are ugly.
My point was that just saying "Haskell is easier to read than C" is a specious statement. I don't know both languages, but I'm a programmer, and the syntax of Haskell (a language I don't know) is harder for me to figure out than Ruby (another language I don't know).
"Easier to read" is subjective, and generally only applies if the reader has spent a fairly significant amount of time dealing with the syntax. Coming from years of C/C++/C#/Python, I can tell you that Haskell is about as easy to read as a set of VCR instructions written in Japanese and translated to English by a blind Venezuelan with Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.
Unfortunately, that means that people paying more are subsidizing those paying less. The money for those rebate checks has to come from somewhere, and the most likely would be the money paid by others under the same scheme. I don't want people to starve, but I don't think that means the government should mug me at gunpoint and give my money to somebody else.
Taxation is just another way of demanding money with menaces.
Awesome quote. Can't believe I hadn't found this sooner.
So they give you something that they want to read wirelessly, then give you something to keep it from being read wirelessly? Ah, government thought in action.
I think this is the kind of thing RFID was invented for. I had a similar experience after playing with RFID at work.
Wasn't this explained not long after the inclusion of RFID chips in passports announced? I just don't understand how it could have been ignored by the government for this long. I'm not this kind of hacker, but even my brief exposure to RFID at work (for inventory management) made me think that it would make a really awful system for sensitive data.
If it means I need surgery to have four extra fingers attached to my left hand, I'll forgo learning this one.