After reading a lot on this is that sometimes an issue becomes a problem without reason.
Now, time is ONLY a man made measure - a measure between events. Nature/the universe doesn't know what time is nor cares about it. It is only us humans that need to try to explain time dilation and various other 'time issues' to make the maths work. Remove time, and I bet it will balance these equations.
Time cannot run backwards,as there is no such thing as time except in the human brain and the human concept of measuring changes.
Nature doesn't care about time? Tell that to the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy only goes one way.
If you watch a video of a ball rolling on a desk, you can't tell just by the video whether time has been reversed. The physics governing that motion don't care about time. If you watch a video of an egg being shattered, you'll know when the video is reversed. You know all the contents of the egg can't spontaneously get back together as time moves forward. That would be going to a much more well-ordered state.
Also, the GPS device you use to triangulate your position and navigate to your destination? Well, consider that relativity tells us that the satellites zooming up above us have slower ticking clocks. They're actually moving through time slower than you are, and our current GPS accuracy wouldn't be achievable if we didn't take that into account.
That makes sense only if you assume the judge is impartial, and the suspect in question is not persecuted for political reasons. Those are bad assumptions in todays America. We already have a lawless society, as demonstrated by the complete lack of prosecutions against anyone involved in illegal surveillance, any bankers whose fraud destroyed the economy and thousands of lives, and against anyone who committed or authorized torture during the Bush regime.
You have to decide which side you are on. The side who breaks the law for the greater good? Or the side who uses the law to commit evil? This is the reality in which we live.
I agree with you completely that problems exist. I don't agree that arbitrary ignoring the justice system is a solution, instead of an action that furthers the problem. It's hard to fight a lack of respect for justice by demonstrating your own lack of respect for justice.
When a judge gives you a warrant to turn over information on one of your users, and you have absolutely no idea whatsoever who the user is or what information is contained in the messages (Lavabit itself couldn't decrypt the communication), you don't have a leg to stand on to deny them the request. How do you know you're not interfering with a proper investigation on someone who used your service to arrange an assassination? You're assuming that particular warrant is invalid, merely because unjust warrants have been issued in the past. I'm not sure sure how you can rationally defend that view, considering perfectly just warrants are also issued all the time.
On the other hand, when you're given a warrant that says, "give me information on all your users," you know that's fishing expedition. You can certainly take a principled stand there.
I trust the concept of a court. I'm not sure what the better alternative is.
That said, I would have obeyed a warrant, not because I think it was properly issued, but because I'm a coward. But if you're talking about "principled", principled would require that I believe the warrant was properly issued.
Well, if you believe the warrant is improperly issued, of course they should fight it, preferably through legal means if possible. And they did. The warrant that required them to turn over their SSL keys was definitely improperly issued, in my opinion, as it targeted every user indiscriminately. I'm not sure why everyone seems to assume the original request was out of line. I completely understand answering an FBI request for the information on the user with, "go get a warrant, then we'll talk." Once they get a warrant, you comply, they followed the correct process. Of course, they got all bitchy that Lavabit would dare force them to involve the courts and decided to retaliate, and that's definitely wrong. That's also the point at which Lavabit took a principled stand.
Once they were given a proper warrant, complying is the principled thing to do.
No, that's the safe thing to do. The principled thing to do is to engage in civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience is a fine thing to accomplish when you believe the laws are wrong. I'm not personally against turning over information when the authorities are following the due process. It's one thing to say, "I want to see what everyone is doing, hand me your data on all your users" and it's something else entirely to say, "I've submitted evidence to a judge that requires gathering information on this one suspect, the judge agrees and provided us with a warrant, please provide this information." The latter is fine. I'm for a free society, not a lawless one.
Lavabit wasn't as principled as claimed by Glenn Greenwald et al. They did actually plan (or told the courts and the FBI they would anyway) to release the records relating to $PROBABLY_SNOWDEN to the FBI. At best you can argue they were lying, but how's that showing integrity?
Once they were given a proper warrant, complying is the principled thing to do. That's proper due process. The point is to prevent the government from gaining access to information while skipping said due process. So no, at best I can argue they were telling the truth, and doing the right thing.
Lavabit made a number of elementary legal mistakes from the beginning, even avoiding using a lawyer in the first hearing. These mistakes made it easy for the FBI to argue that they couldn't trust Lavabit to do what Lavabit was offering to do. Lavabit should have contacted the FBI immediately, made it clear their concerns
Assuming the facts are correct, agreed.
and not made a clearly bad-faith offer to provide something useless to the FBI
I don't think that's what they did. The first offer of providing the information on a monthly basis seems both useful and better targeted than the initial FBI request. Why is this a bad-faith offer?
Notwithstanding the above, the court's refusal to allow Lavabit to talk to politicians et al about the basic principles in the case seems absurd and completely unconstitutional.
Right. The whole thing was the government throwing a fit. "Oh, you want to fight us. We'll up the ante, and ask for something completely unreasonable then.." It was very principled on their part to not fold as a result, and to shut down instead of giving them what they wanted.
I don't think FPS killed adventure games though, I just think that over time as more and more people started playing games that the type of people who love adventure games are outnumbered by the type of people who love FPS games. And of course there's overlap between the groups. So while the number of adventure games and adventure game players has also grown, it just has grown at a slower rate.
I agree with you. When I say that it killed the genre, I mean that I don't particularly like the newer adventure games that still get made. Because it all uses a 3D engine, and I have to walk around and look for stuff. I like the adventure games in the old style. Look at a static screen, figure out what can be done here, move to the next static screen. I don't see those being made anymore.
Putting very hard puzzles between no exposition and story fragments left me with a "WTF am I doing here?" There was no story that I wanted to have continued. Just random, meaningless puzzles.
And that's a fine point and good criticism. I didn't mean to say everybody should love Myst. I just wanted to point out that the reason I enjoyed it had nothing to do with polished pre-rendered graphics. The graphics in today's games are much better, but I still prefer Myst's gameplay. Since you don't like the style, even back when Myst was popular, you still didn't like it. That's cool.
For me, the whole, "wtf am I doing here?" feeling is what made the game. That's the story. I find myself in this island, I'm not sure where I am or how I got here. It's my job to find out. The puzzles had a consistent theme (and once you started hopping worlds through the books you find, each world had its theme), and although you weren't sure of their meaning, you eventually discovered it. At the Myst island, the puzzles were hiding spots for the books, which were each hidden within a mechanism that mimicked the theme of the age the book linked to. The tower was something of a password hint, designed to help Atrus or Catherine figure out how to get to the books if they forgot the key to the puzzles. Discovering what everything was all about was the exciting part for me.
Indeed, I thought the real revolutionary part of Myst was "Hey, so good graphics look nice." I didn't think anyone thought that there would be a flood of games where you explored islands created through books.
I'm seeing a lot of comments here about how the most revolutionary part of Myst was the graphics, and I'm actually surprised. That's not why I like Myst at all (and I still think Myst and Riven are fantastic games). To me, it's about the style of gameplay. There are puzzles, hard puzzles and a story that you're trying to piece together with very little exposition. It was great to just explore without worrying about time limits or things trying to kill you. Every time you discovered something new and progressed, that discovery was its own exciting reward.
I do agree that "doom happened" is the answer to what happened to Myst-style games, and the adventure genre period. I forever curse the rise of FPS games for that reason. I know adventure games are still made, but 3D killed them, for the same reason Myst III isn't as good as Myst or Riven. I don't want a 3D environment. I want the static adventures of old.
Speaking of old, that's what I am. Get off my lawn and whatnot.
We are a nation of laws. Who made you the arbiter of the "spirit of the law"? Did you write the law of which you speak? Were you involved in the drafting of that law at all? What qualifies you to know what the spirit of the law is?
Can I get called in for jury duty? Then I'm the arbiter of the law.
The entire point of our system of justice that involves a jury trial is that every citizen becomes the arbiter of the spirit of the law.
Hes doing his job, whether you like it or not. Dont blame the police for laws you dont like.
I can blame him. Because he uses excuses like these:
'At a red light, you're still driving. according to the law. You're on a roadway, behind (the wheel of) a car, in charge of it, with a vehicle in drive,'
There's a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Assholes like this guy who are more interested in the letter of the law are the reasons why laws get so complicated you need lawyers to interpret them. You can't just write a law that says, "it's illegal to text and drive." You have to define what constitutes driving, and then write an exception for being stopped at a light. Having every law consist of 30 pages of legalize is not in the best interests of society.
Why is texting and driving dangerous? Because every moment you're not looking in front of you, your car is covering a rather large distance. Unexpected things happen in the blink of an eye. If you're not moving, that's not an issue. His actions are not consistent with the spirit of the law. It's very reasonable to blame him.
No operating system will enjoy mainstream adoption these days if mucking about in a CLI is ever a necessity. Sad but true.
Agreed. But since this isn't 2005, and no modern Linux distro ever requires you to see a CLI, much less use one, that's not really an issue.
It's still there, it's still useful as hell to do things quickly and efficiently, but you don't HAVE to use it. It's like popping the windows powershell open. If you're a power user, you want to have that option. My parents have been running Linux (Ubuntu) for years, without problems. They only stumbled when gnome 2 got replaced by Unity and they had to learn something new. But as much as I hate the damn thing, they were fine with it after 2 weeks or so.
Not a lawyer, but I'd refer you to your own constitution: "X - são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação..."
The United States isn't subject to the Brazilian constitution any more than the Brazil is subject to the US one. Which is my point.
Yes, life can produce methane. Yes, some geological processes can produce methane. Mars has neither... So?
Well, that's the thing. Mars does have methane, we've detected it before. So the mystery is, what happened to the previously detected methane plumes? Why did they disappear?
So now not only do we not know what produced the methane in mars, we additionally don't know why it's no longer doing so. Mystery deepened.
If you're not welcome on the premises, it's still trespassing, whether the door is locked or not.
Under which criminal code? Trespassing only exists because there's a law in the books that define it. Now name the law book that nations have to abide.
Unless the US signed a treaty with Brazil that say they can't spy on them, it's fair game. I say this is a Brazilian.
LateArthurDent (1403947) rapes children LateArthurDent placed explosives on a plane LateArthurDent set a kitten on fire LateArthurDent rapes more children LateArthurDent has orgies in the horse pen, with the horses LateArthurDent has no genitals LateArthurDent steals from family, friends, and jobs
LateArthurDent is now linked in Google to all the above terms, and is now on multiple NSA lists.
Have fun getting groped at the airport, followed by being raped in prison LateArthurDent!
Anonymous Coward is a libeler! I'm taking you to court.
(ps, just kidding!)
Damn. That's like one of those weasel ways of getting away with libel, like adding, "in my opinion" to a sentence, isn't it. All right, you win this round.
There is no such thing as a joke that is not OK. People like you get offended, but that's because you don't understand the power of a joke. You're not going to change the mind of actual misogynists by telling them you're offended about their beliefs. But when society makes fun of their beliefs by making a joke like that, and everyone laughs instead of seriously agreeing, that means we're moving past it. We're showing those people their arguments have been shot down so many times they're not even worth it debating anymore. We can just voice what they're parroting and everyone understand it to be a joke, because that's the only thing that opinion makes sense as.
When you take it seriously and get offended, you actually legitimize their position. Stop it.
The Guardian, ProPublica, the NYT and Schneier all appear confident enough in what they've read to state assertively that it's a hacked standard. Also, why else would the NSA care so much about pushing a crap and slow RNG that we know can have a backdoor into international standards?
Well, as someone pointed out before, the last time everyone went paranoid on the whole, "the NSA is purposefully weakening encryption" is when they provided S-boxes values for DES before anyone else knew about differential cryptanalysis. Turns out they were actually strengthening the algorithm. It's possible they're doing the same thing again. After all, if they're deliberately adding weaknesses, they risk foreign entities discovering those weaknesses and intercepting traffic from american companies, which I doubt is something they want.
Now, since 9/11 our government has gone batshit insane and has made incredibly poor decisions that violate our rights and offer no additional safety. So I'm not saying they haven't added those backdoors. I'm saying the wording in the memo doesn't really confirm they have. It's still possible they want to influence international standards to increase security, not insert weaknesses.
One part of sexual equality that women want is to stop being objectified.
On the contrary, that would make things unequal. Do you honestly think we'd be hearing about this if it were a group of women coders talking about an app to check out male butts? Everyone would have laughed it off, and it wouldn't have been an issue. Nor should it be an issue, there's no problem with it.
Objectifying the opposite sex is part of being human. Pretending it's not is puritanical. It's only sexist if that's all you think of women. If you're unwilling to hire women to work on your team, that's sexist. If you think they should only be secretaries or housewives, that's sexist. If you're hiring them because of their looks instead of their skills, that's sexist. If you engage in sexual harassment by targeting a particular woman who has already made clear she's uncomfortable with your behavior, that's sexist (and illegal, and rightfully punished). If you're making random jokes about sex, they're jokes. If you're offended and can't take it, leave.
Part of being a functional adult is being able to navigate the society you live in. Telling tit jokes to a mixed audience is not adult behavior.
Mixed audience? What is this, the 1950's?
Part of the whole thing about treating women equally is giving up on the ridiculous concept that women aren't interested in sex and that, as a result, sex jokes are only appropriate around males. Women have tits, men sometimes stare at them, pictures that catch them in the act is funny. There's no reason women shouldn't hear this joke, or feel threatened by it.
The problem isn't that these people weren't "acting as adults." The problem is that a society that freaks out when a boob is shown for half a second in the middle of the superbowl aren't acting like adults. It's a fucking body part. It's not going to scar children for life. They've all seen it before and sucked upon it.
Thanks for the correction. This makes the analysis on 8.024e-5 which is still a very small percentage of our genes.
We share about 98% of our genes with chimpanzees, dude. It's not like any one of our many genes can be different, the vast majority are exactly the same. By contrast, the current theory that the homo sapiens first evolved in Africa is based on a study that looked at 1327 DNA markers. Are you going to claim that study is also flawed?
I'm a gun owner and strongly anti-NRA. I support strong background checks, gun restrictions (caliber, rate of fire, and magazine capacity), and closing the private sales loophole (iow, requiring background checks in all situations).
I'm not sure what you mean by strong background checks (the government does some background checks for security clearances that requires interviewing friends and acquaintances. Not only are they expensive as hell, which makes them impractical, but they're also overly intrusive for the purpose at hand). I would support checking for a criminal record. I would also agree with requiring such a check on private sales if it was easy and cheap for any private citizen to request this information prior to a sale.
I do not advocate hunting except in certain circumstances (and I don't eat meat anymore which is part of that).
I understand your argument emotionally, which is why I don't hunt. I couldn't really go through with killing an animal and seeing it die. That said, there are two things which I understand: first, hunting is a more humane way of acquiring meat than supermarket shopping. At least the animals you hunt had a free life until you decided you were hungry. Animals raised to be slaughtered are raised in horrible conditions with no space to even walk. Second, in certain areas where certain animals have no natural predators, their numbers must be controlled. So I consider regulated seasonable hunting to be actually quite good and in some cases necessary.
or teaching children to shoot. Teenagers start to become old enough and responsible enough for that
I think that's a parenting decision, not a government one. I do, however, support prosecuting the parents for negligence in cases of accidents caused by children with guns due to either insufficient supervision (if you're going to teach your child to shoot a gun, you better be watching them very closely) or no supervision (you should be responsible for locking your guns away where children can't get to them).
The NRA tends to think of guns as the solution to a lot of problems, which means now you have new problems. I also do not share the thinking that our guns would be sufficient to fight off the government.
No argument from me. If the ACLU didn't completely ignore gun rights, I could stop supporting the NRA and their more extreme segment.
"Well-regulated" is very important to me.
Well, the complete quote is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".
How I personally interpret this, and I'm fully aware it's a controversial issue and my interpretation isn't the only one, is that it's a two-part statement. The first one is the justification, that a well-regulated militia is necessary. The second is the restriction upon the government: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't say, "the right of the militia," it says the "the right of the people." The way I see it, the reasoning was that the more people we have with guns, and trained to use them, the easiest it is to just draft people to form said well-regulated militia in a hurry if it becomes necessary to defend your country from an invasion.
Not that I personally see the reasoning as important. I don't think the founding fathers were some type of gods who were always right about everything. I do think it should be difficult to change the law of the land. If as a people we decide that the second amendment is no longer relevant in today's world, and government should have the right to to restrict the right of people to bear arms after all, then pass an amendment nullifying it. There's a process in place to do that. If there's not enough support to do it, then it shouldn't be changed.
If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.
I don't own a gun, but I'm a member of the NRA. And the ACLU. There are many people who own guns and are not members of the NRA. So clearly having a list of NRA members isn't the same as having a list of gun owners. Not that I'd approve of the government getting that list either, but I know that if they think they want it, they'll get it.
Basically, I support any organization that protects our rights. So even though I've never gone hunting, and I don't find shooting in the range THAT fun (I've only done it three times), I still support the NRA. And although I also support the ACLU, they seem to want to skip protecting that one right, so I can't ignore the NRA. It's definitely nice to see them working together.
UI should always be customizable. No two people like it exactly the same way. Find a default that seems to work for most people, but let people change it to avoid the (justified) complaints.
As much as I despise ALL CAPS posting, I don't think it has anything to do with creditworthiness. You (and lenders in the article) are making financial decisions based on non-financial characteristics.
I would say it is linked to poor education, which is linked with credit worthiness.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading a lot on this is that sometimes an issue becomes a problem without reason.
Now, time is ONLY a man made measure - a measure between events. Nature/the universe doesn't know what time is nor cares about it. It is only us humans that need to try to explain time dilation and various other 'time issues' to make the maths work. Remove time, and I bet it will balance these equations.
Time cannot run backwards,as there is no such thing as time except in the human brain and the human concept of measuring changes.
Nature doesn't care about time? Tell that to the laws of thermodynamics. Entropy only goes one way.
If you watch a video of a ball rolling on a desk, you can't tell just by the video whether time has been reversed. The physics governing that motion don't care about time. If you watch a video of an egg being shattered, you'll know when the video is reversed. You know all the contents of the egg can't spontaneously get back together as time moves forward. That would be going to a much more well-ordered state.
Also, the GPS device you use to triangulate your position and navigate to your destination? Well, consider that relativity tells us that the satellites zooming up above us have slower ticking clocks. They're actually moving through time slower than you are, and our current GPS accuracy wouldn't be achievable if we didn't take that into account.
That makes sense only if you assume the judge is impartial, and the suspect in question is not persecuted for political reasons. Those are bad assumptions in todays America. We already have a lawless society, as demonstrated by the complete lack of prosecutions against anyone involved in illegal surveillance, any bankers whose fraud destroyed the economy and thousands of lives, and against anyone who committed or authorized torture during the Bush regime.
You have to decide which side you are on. The side who breaks the law for the greater good? Or the side who uses the law to commit evil? This is the reality in which we live.
I agree with you completely that problems exist. I don't agree that arbitrary ignoring the justice system is a solution, instead of an action that furthers the problem. It's hard to fight a lack of respect for justice by demonstrating your own lack of respect for justice.
When a judge gives you a warrant to turn over information on one of your users, and you have absolutely no idea whatsoever who the user is or what information is contained in the messages (Lavabit itself couldn't decrypt the communication), you don't have a leg to stand on to deny them the request. How do you know you're not interfering with a proper investigation on someone who used your service to arrange an assassination? You're assuming that particular warrant is invalid, merely because unjust warrants have been issued in the past. I'm not sure sure how you can rationally defend that view, considering perfectly just warrants are also issued all the time.
On the other hand, when you're given a warrant that says, "give me information on all your users," you know that's fishing expedition. You can certainly take a principled stand there.
I see you trust the courts more than I do.
I trust the concept of a court. I'm not sure what the better alternative is.
That said, I would have obeyed a warrant, not because I think it was properly issued, but because I'm a coward. But if you're talking about "principled", principled would require that I believe the warrant was properly issued.
Well, if you believe the warrant is improperly issued, of course they should fight it, preferably through legal means if possible. And they did. The warrant that required them to turn over their SSL keys was definitely improperly issued, in my opinion, as it targeted every user indiscriminately. I'm not sure why everyone seems to assume the original request was out of line. I completely understand answering an FBI request for the information on the user with, "go get a warrant, then we'll talk." Once they get a warrant, you comply, they followed the correct process. Of course, they got all bitchy that Lavabit would dare force them to involve the courts and decided to retaliate, and that's definitely wrong. That's also the point at which Lavabit took a principled stand.
Once they were given a proper warrant, complying is the principled thing to do.
No, that's the safe thing to do. The principled thing to do is to engage in civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience is a fine thing to accomplish when you believe the laws are wrong. I'm not personally against turning over information when the authorities are following the due process. It's one thing to say, "I want to see what everyone is doing, hand me your data on all your users" and it's something else entirely to say, "I've submitted evidence to a judge that requires gathering information on this one suspect, the judge agrees and provided us with a warrant, please provide this information." The latter is fine. I'm for a free society, not a lawless one.
Lavabit wasn't as principled as claimed by Glenn Greenwald et al. They did actually plan (or told the courts and the FBI they would anyway) to release the records relating to $PROBABLY_SNOWDEN to the FBI. At best you can argue they were lying, but how's that showing integrity?
Once they were given a proper warrant, complying is the principled thing to do. That's proper due process. The point is to prevent the government from gaining access to information while skipping said due process. So no, at best I can argue they were telling the truth, and doing the right thing.
Lavabit made a number of elementary legal mistakes from the beginning, even avoiding using a lawyer in the first hearing. These mistakes made it easy for the FBI to argue that they couldn't trust Lavabit to do what Lavabit was offering to do. Lavabit should have contacted the FBI immediately, made it clear their concerns
Assuming the facts are correct, agreed.
and not made a clearly bad-faith offer to provide something useless to the FBI
I don't think that's what they did. The first offer of providing the information on a monthly basis seems both useful and better targeted than the initial FBI request. Why is this a bad-faith offer?
Notwithstanding the above, the court's refusal to allow Lavabit to talk to politicians et al about the basic principles in the case seems absurd and completely unconstitutional.
Right. The whole thing was the government throwing a fit. "Oh, you want to fight us. We'll up the ante, and ask for something completely unreasonable then.." It was very principled on their part to not fold as a result, and to shut down instead of giving them what they wanted.
I don't think FPS killed adventure games though, I just think that over time as more and more people started playing games that the type of people who love adventure games are outnumbered by the type of people who love FPS games. And of course there's overlap between the groups. So while the number of adventure games and adventure game players has also grown, it just has grown at a slower rate.
I agree with you. When I say that it killed the genre, I mean that I don't particularly like the newer adventure games that still get made. Because it all uses a 3D engine, and I have to walk around and look for stuff. I like the adventure games in the old style. Look at a static screen, figure out what can be done here, move to the next static screen. I don't see those being made anymore.
Putting very hard puzzles between no exposition and story fragments left me with a "WTF am I doing here?" There was no story that I wanted to have continued. Just random, meaningless puzzles.
And that's a fine point and good criticism. I didn't mean to say everybody should love Myst. I just wanted to point out that the reason I enjoyed it had nothing to do with polished pre-rendered graphics. The graphics in today's games are much better, but I still prefer Myst's gameplay. Since you don't like the style, even back when Myst was popular, you still didn't like it. That's cool.
For me, the whole, "wtf am I doing here?" feeling is what made the game. That's the story. I find myself in this island, I'm not sure where I am or how I got here. It's my job to find out. The puzzles had a consistent theme (and once you started hopping worlds through the books you find, each world had its theme), and although you weren't sure of their meaning, you eventually discovered it. At the Myst island, the puzzles were hiding spots for the books, which were each hidden within a mechanism that mimicked the theme of the age the book linked to. The tower was something of a password hint, designed to help Atrus or Catherine figure out how to get to the books if they forgot the key to the puzzles. Discovering what everything was all about was the exciting part for me.
Indeed, I thought the real revolutionary part of Myst was "Hey, so good graphics look nice." I didn't think anyone thought that there would be a flood of games where you explored islands created through books.
I'm seeing a lot of comments here about how the most revolutionary part of Myst was the graphics, and I'm actually surprised. That's not why I like Myst at all (and I still think Myst and Riven are fantastic games). To me, it's about the style of gameplay. There are puzzles, hard puzzles and a story that you're trying to piece together with very little exposition. It was great to just explore without worrying about time limits or things trying to kill you. Every time you discovered something new and progressed, that discovery was its own exciting reward.
I do agree that "doom happened" is the answer to what happened to Myst-style games, and the adventure genre period. I forever curse the rise of FPS games for that reason. I know adventure games are still made, but 3D killed them, for the same reason Myst III isn't as good as Myst or Riven. I don't want a 3D environment. I want the static adventures of old.
Speaking of old, that's what I am. Get off my lawn and whatnot.
We are a nation of laws. Who made you the arbiter of the "spirit of the law"? Did you write the law of which you speak? Were you involved in the drafting of that law at all? What qualifies you to know what the spirit of the law is?
Can I get called in for jury duty? Then I'm the arbiter of the law.
The entire point of our system of justice that involves a jury trial is that every citizen becomes the arbiter of the spirit of the law.
Hes doing his job, whether you like it or not. Dont blame the police for laws you dont like.
I can blame him. Because he uses excuses like these:
'At a red light, you're still driving. according to the law. You're on a roadway, behind (the wheel of) a car, in charge of it, with a vehicle in drive,'
There's a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Assholes like this guy who are more interested in the letter of the law are the reasons why laws get so complicated you need lawyers to interpret them. You can't just write a law that says, "it's illegal to text and drive." You have to define what constitutes driving, and then write an exception for being stopped at a light. Having every law consist of 30 pages of legalize is not in the best interests of society.
Why is texting and driving dangerous? Because every moment you're not looking in front of you, your car is covering a rather large distance. Unexpected things happen in the blink of an eye. If you're not moving, that's not an issue. His actions are not consistent with the spirit of the law. It's very reasonable to blame him.
No operating system will enjoy mainstream adoption these days if mucking about in a CLI is ever a necessity. Sad but true.
Agreed. But since this isn't 2005, and no modern Linux distro ever requires you to see a CLI, much less use one, that's not really an issue.
It's still there, it's still useful as hell to do things quickly and efficiently, but you don't HAVE to use it. It's like popping the windows powershell open. If you're a power user, you want to have that option. My parents have been running Linux (Ubuntu) for years, without problems. They only stumbled when gnome 2 got replaced by Unity and they had to learn something new. But as much as I hate the damn thing, they were fine with it after 2 weeks or so.
Under which criminal code?
Not a lawyer, but I'd refer you to your own constitution: "X - são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação ..."
The United States isn't subject to the Brazilian constitution any more than the Brazil is subject to the US one. Which is my point.
Yes, life can produce methane. Yes, some geological processes can produce methane. Mars has neither... So?
Well, that's the thing. Mars does have methane, we've detected it before. So the mystery is, what happened to the previously detected methane plumes? Why did they disappear?
So now not only do we not know what produced the methane in mars, we additionally don't know why it's no longer doing so. Mystery deepened.
If you're not welcome on the premises, it's still trespassing, whether the door is locked or not.
Under which criminal code? Trespassing only exists because there's a law in the books that define it. Now name the law book that nations have to abide.
Unless the US signed a treaty with Brazil that say they can't spy on them, it's fair game. I say this is a Brazilian.
Joking in this way is not OK.
There is no such thing as a joke that is not OK.
LateArthurDent (1403947) rapes children
LateArthurDent placed explosives on a plane
LateArthurDent set a kitten on fire
LateArthurDent rapes more children
LateArthurDent has orgies in the horse pen, with the horses
LateArthurDent has no genitals
LateArthurDent steals from family, friends, and jobs
LateArthurDent is now linked in Google to all the above terms, and is now on multiple NSA lists.
Have fun getting groped at the airport, followed by being raped in prison LateArthurDent!
Anonymous Coward is a libeler! I'm taking you to court.
(ps, just kidding!)
Damn. That's like one of those weasel ways of getting away with libel, like adding, "in my opinion" to a sentence, isn't it. All right, you win this round.
Joking in this way is not OK.
There is no such thing as a joke that is not OK. People like you get offended, but that's because you don't understand the power of a joke. You're not going to change the mind of actual misogynists by telling them you're offended about their beliefs. But when society makes fun of their beliefs by making a joke like that, and everyone laughs instead of seriously agreeing, that means we're moving past it. We're showing those people their arguments have been shot down so many times they're not even worth it debating anymore. We can just voice what they're parroting and everyone understand it to be a joke, because that's the only thing that opinion makes sense as.
When you take it seriously and get offended, you actually legitimize their position. Stop it.
That is actually still true.
The Guardian, ProPublica, the NYT and Schneier all appear confident enough in what they've read to state assertively that it's a hacked standard. Also, why else would the NSA care so much about pushing a crap and slow RNG that we know can have a backdoor into international standards?
Well, as someone pointed out before, the last time everyone went paranoid on the whole, "the NSA is purposefully weakening encryption" is when they provided S-boxes values for DES before anyone else knew about differential cryptanalysis. Turns out they were actually strengthening the algorithm. It's possible they're doing the same thing again. After all, if they're deliberately adding weaknesses, they risk foreign entities discovering those weaknesses and intercepting traffic from american companies, which I doubt is something they want.
Now, since 9/11 our government has gone batshit insane and has made incredibly poor decisions that violate our rights and offer no additional safety. So I'm not saying they haven't added those backdoors. I'm saying the wording in the memo doesn't really confirm they have. It's still possible they want to influence international standards to increase security, not insert weaknesses.
One part of sexual equality that women want is to stop being objectified.
On the contrary, that would make things unequal. Do you honestly think we'd be hearing about this if it were a group of women coders talking about an app to check out male butts? Everyone would have laughed it off, and it wouldn't have been an issue. Nor should it be an issue, there's no problem with it.
Objectifying the opposite sex is part of being human. Pretending it's not is puritanical. It's only sexist if that's all you think of women. If you're unwilling to hire women to work on your team, that's sexist. If you think they should only be secretaries or housewives, that's sexist. If you're hiring them because of their looks instead of their skills, that's sexist. If you engage in sexual harassment by targeting a particular woman who has already made clear she's uncomfortable with your behavior, that's sexist (and illegal, and rightfully punished). If you're making random jokes about sex, they're jokes. If you're offended and can't take it, leave.
Part of being a functional adult is being able to navigate the society you live in. Telling tit jokes to a mixed audience is not adult behavior.
Mixed audience? What is this, the 1950's?
Part of the whole thing about treating women equally is giving up on the ridiculous concept that women aren't interested in sex and that, as a result, sex jokes are only appropriate around males. Women have tits, men sometimes stare at them, pictures that catch them in the act is funny. There's no reason women shouldn't hear this joke, or feel threatened by it.
The problem isn't that these people weren't "acting as adults." The problem is that a society that freaks out when a boob is shown for half a second in the middle of the superbowl aren't acting like adults. It's a fucking body part. It's not going to scar children for life. They've all seen it before and sucked upon it.
Thanks for the correction. This makes the analysis on 8.024e-5 which is still a very small percentage of our genes.
We share about 98% of our genes with chimpanzees, dude. It's not like any one of our many genes can be different, the vast majority are exactly the same. By contrast, the current theory that the homo sapiens first evolved in Africa is based on a study that looked at 1327 DNA markers. Are you going to claim that study is also flawed?
I'm a gun owner and strongly anti-NRA. I support strong background checks, gun restrictions (caliber, rate of fire, and magazine capacity), and closing the private sales loophole (iow, requiring background checks in all situations).
I'm not sure what you mean by strong background checks (the government does some background checks for security clearances that requires interviewing friends and acquaintances. Not only are they expensive as hell, which makes them impractical, but they're also overly intrusive for the purpose at hand). I would support checking for a criminal record. I would also agree with requiring such a check on private sales if it was easy and cheap for any private citizen to request this information prior to a sale.
I do not advocate hunting except in certain circumstances (and I don't eat meat anymore which is part of that).
I understand your argument emotionally, which is why I don't hunt. I couldn't really go through with killing an animal and seeing it die. That said, there are two things which I understand: first, hunting is a more humane way of acquiring meat than supermarket shopping. At least the animals you hunt had a free life until you decided you were hungry. Animals raised to be slaughtered are raised in horrible conditions with no space to even walk. Second, in certain areas where certain animals have no natural predators, their numbers must be controlled. So I consider regulated seasonable hunting to be actually quite good and in some cases necessary.
or teaching children to shoot. Teenagers start to become old enough and responsible enough for that
I think that's a parenting decision, not a government one. I do, however, support prosecuting the parents for negligence in cases of accidents caused by children with guns due to either insufficient supervision (if you're going to teach your child to shoot a gun, you better be watching them very closely) or no supervision (you should be responsible for locking your guns away where children can't get to them).
The NRA tends to think of guns as the solution to a lot of problems, which means now you have new problems. I also do not share the thinking that our guns would be sufficient to fight off the government.
No argument from me. If the ACLU didn't completely ignore gun rights, I could stop supporting the NRA and their more extreme segment.
"Well-regulated" is very important to me.
Well, the complete quote is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".
How I personally interpret this, and I'm fully aware it's a controversial issue and my interpretation isn't the only one, is that it's a two-part statement. The first one is the justification, that a well-regulated militia is necessary. The second is the restriction upon the government: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It doesn't say, "the right of the militia," it says the "the right of the people." The way I see it, the reasoning was that the more people we have with guns, and trained to use them, the easiest it is to just draft people to form said well-regulated militia in a hurry if it becomes necessary to defend your country from an invasion.
Not that I personally see the reasoning as important. I don't think the founding fathers were some type of gods who were always right about everything. I do think it should be difficult to change the law of the land. If as a people we decide that the second amendment is no longer relevant in today's world, and government should have the right to to restrict the right of people to bear arms after all, then pass an amendment nullifying it. There's a process in place to do that. If there's not enough support to do it, then it shouldn't be changed.
What I do believe in is sta
If the NRA already collects names, who's to say they don't share them with the government already, willingly or unwillingly? Seems like a pretty easy nut to crack... and oh boy they have a lot of nuts in that org.
I don't own a gun, but I'm a member of the NRA. And the ACLU. There are many people who own guns and are not members of the NRA. So clearly having a list of NRA members isn't the same as having a list of gun owners. Not that I'd approve of the government getting that list either, but I know that if they think they want it, they'll get it.
Basically, I support any organization that protects our rights. So even though I've never gone hunting, and I don't find shooting in the range THAT fun (I've only done it three times), I still support the NRA. And although I also support the ACLU, they seem to want to skip protecting that one right, so I can't ignore the NRA. It's definitely nice to see them working together.
UI should always be customizable. No two people like it exactly the same way. Find a default that seems to work for most people, but let people change it to avoid the (justified) complaints.
As much as I despise ALL CAPS posting, I don't think it has anything to do with creditworthiness. You (and lenders in the article) are making financial decisions based on non-financial characteristics.
I would say it is linked to poor education, which is linked with credit worthiness.