Because it was deemed that 35 was a 'Safe' speed to drive on that particular stretch of roadway.
Remember the part about it being 3:00 AM, deserted, and miles from anywhere?
Why am I allowed to climb mountains, skydive, bungee jump, and smoke cigarettes, all of which constitute a risk to myself (and in the case of cigarettes, others as well) and yet I can't speed on a deserted roadway because it's "unsafe?"
Other than the fact that it is illegal, can you please provide a cogent argument for why it is wrong to drive 45 in a 35 zone at 3:00 AM on a country road 10 miles from the nearest house?
I get really depressed in the Winter when it gets dark at 4 in the afternoon...
Guess what, it's STILL going to get dark at 4 in the afternoon. The winter soltice occurs near December 21st, which is outside of the adjusted window. This won't make any difference in the deep of winter.
However, I've wondered what the correct answer would be?
The correct answer is "I was too busy watching the traffic around me to glance at the speedometer. That would have involved taking my eyes off the road."
My best advice for dealing with the police when you are pulled over is to MAKE NO EXCUSES. That doesn't mean you have to admit to anything, but it does mean that you shouldn't make up stupid shit to try to explain away what you were doing. Simply saying "I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention I guess," will usually disarm the cop (they aren't used to hearing honesty) and you might even make out with a warning instead of a ticket.
Uhh.. The cosine error is always in the police's favor. The maximum speed they can read is a straight-on reading. Anything read from the side is an underestimate of your true speed.
And before you say 'well we save money by turning out the lights earlier in our office'.. you still have 8 hours with the lights on.. Wont matter the time window...
Except that this moves the time window to include more daylight hours, so you don't need to have your lights on. At least that is the theory.
Personally, I think the clocks should stay constant, and society should shift its working hours according to the season. As winter approaches, people start going to work earlier, so they can come home in the daylight hours. Of course, that's NEVER going to happen.
From Rockstar's statement:
"...hackers created the 'hot coffee' modification by disassembling and then combining, recompiling and altering the game's source code. Since the 'hot coffee' scenes cannot be created without intentional and significant technical modifications and reverse engineering of the game's source code..."
They never said the content was inserted, they said the game was modified, which is true.
Oh, come OFF it. That passage is all but incomprehensible gobbledegook for anybody who isn't a programmer. "Altering the game's source code" sounds an awful like inserting the entire thing into the game. This is nothing but atrocious doublespeak which any politician would be proud of.
So no, TECHNICALLY they did not claim the hacker did it, but the message was carefully worded to give that impression to the average person. But in court, they can weasle out of the statement by explaining that setting bits in the binary is what they meant by "altering the source code."
Thus, while a fish might not notice it's smaller the species is probably suffering because of its smaller average size.
Clearly not, because if getting smaller were a disadvantage, it wouldn't be happening. What you mean is that if human fishing was removed from the picture, the fish might no longer be adapted to their environment. Well, yes. But if they could adapt in such a short time to the pressures of modern fishing, chances are they can adapt back to a more "natural" state in a comparable amount of time.
Really though, it is a successful tiny step in a direction that no-one else has thought of going. That's worth congratulating in and of itself.
I'm sure people have thought of it before, but they haven't done it because it's clear that it can't work unless it's given an infinite context of moves. Otherwise, you can set the computer up to fail by creating a situation near the beginning of the midgame and then playing out a line that traps the computer as soon as it runs out of context.
It is also limited to what it learns by "observing" other games. So it can never move creatively or unexpectedly.
It's an interesting thing to play with, to be sure, but it's never going to rise to the level of other systems.
northen cod in southern Labrador and eastern Newfoundland fisheries suffered as a result of maturing at ever-earlier ages/smaller sizes (a trend caused by the way the fisheries were managed).
I don't understand your use of "suffered." The fish seem to be evolving to be able to evade the fishing nets. Instead of ending up on people's dinner plates, they are still swimming in the sea. Don't you see this is a good example of a species evolving to fit its changing environment?
As people, we look at the circumstances and say "It's a shame things are changing," but that's just our humanity speaking. One of the things the Buddha got right was that human suffering derives from a fear of change. But I'm 99.9% certain that the fish don't care whatsoever (or suffer, for that matter).
However by modifying the selective pressures we can have large influences on the directions of evolution. While humans did not create the tuskless phenotype we are contributing to its increase in abundance
I agree. I am only raising an objection to the terminology.
What happens is those fish with the genetic disposition to grow very large have a much lower success rate when it comes to mating, and there fore the genes that allow fish to grow large become increasingly rare.
But it takes time for fish to grow that large -- they aren't born that way. Surely they must have a chance to reproduce in their earlier years, before they grow to a more enticing size? This theory has a slight ring of truth to it, but I don't think it's cut and dry.
What we have to ask ourselves though, is, are we doing this to any other animals as well? Forcing evolution, as it could be called?
I have to strongly object to your terminology. Evolution is not an entity or process which can be "forced" into anything. It is simply an observation about what happens in the world.
"Selective pressure" is an incredibly loaded term which anthropomorphizes what's really happening. In this case, what is happening with the elephants is that the ones with tusks are being killed off, and the ones without tusks are not (and it's not any more complicated than that). There is nothing putting "pressure" on the elephants to lose their tusks. The mutations are random and happen without respect to environmental changes. It is the environment which makes some of these mutations more or less favorable but it is not the cause of those mutations.
Suppose you wanted to "force" humans to evolve gills, like fish. Suppose that you did this by rounding up everybody who did not have gills, and drowning them. Do you think this procedure has any chance in hell of causing humans to start growing gills? The reason why not, is that the sort of mutation that could cause that is extremely complex and almost infinitely unlikely. But in the case of the elephants, the tuskless phenotype was present even before the advent of modern hunting.
Evolution has no will, no path, no agenda, no nothing. It can't be forced, pressured, coerced, etc.
Do now. You gave it to them. At least those three songs.
No. What they have is an irrevocable license to use and sublicense the work. They don't own it, but they have all the same rights as the author to profit from it.
Legalize marijuana, but make it illegal as hell to drive while intoxicated by marijuana because it's the intoxicated driving that directly injures other people, not the actual intoxication. Or let me own whatever gun I want, but punish me severely if I shoot someone with it other than in legally justified defense of myself, my property, or others.
So on the one hand, you want to allow people to possess guns, and only punish them if they use those guns to violate others rights. Yet on the other hand, you want to punish people merely for DRIVING while intoxicated, even if they cause no harm.
In one case you advocate punishment only if there is a bad outcome. In the other, you want punishment for even the possibility of a bad outcome. Which way do you want it? You're being inconsistent.
Surely you have a sizeable inventory of tech-savvy friends. Some of these people are either good coders themselves, or they know some kick-ass people you could use.
Why use some big, impersonal job aggregator, never even meeting the programmer in person, when you could just go down to a coffee shop and meet with a friend-of-a-friend? Keep the money local, and help build "the network." The network is how those who know what they are doing leverage the abilities of other skilled people. Massive aggregator sites break down the network and overly corporatize it, leading to impersonal interactions and lack of accountability.
you're also producing toxic, ozone destroying chlorine gas as a byproduct.
The chlorine produced would be no threat to the ozone layer. Chlorine is too reactive to survive in elemental form all the way up to the ozone layer. The entire reason why CFCs were so destructive is because they were so stable they were able to survive all the way to the upper reaches of the atmosphere, where they were finally broken down by UV and released the chlorine they carried. (This process is actually still continuing, even though CFCs have been banned for many years. That's how stable these compounds are.)
Elemental chlorine is not exactly a fun-time gas but it's not going to harm the ozone layer.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying, the only reason you don't commit hellish acts is because they are illegal? What a shining example of a human being.
The question was in regard to right and wrong, not legality. Sadly, too many people (known as "imbeciles") can't tell the difference.
Remember the part about it being 3:00 AM, deserted, and miles from anywhere?
Why am I allowed to climb mountains, skydive, bungee jump, and smoke cigarettes, all of which constitute a risk to myself (and in the case of cigarettes, others as well) and yet I can't speed on a deserted roadway because it's "unsafe?"
Other than the fact that it is illegal, can you please provide a cogent argument for why it is wrong to drive 45 in a 35 zone at 3:00 AM on a country road 10 miles from the nearest house?
Guess what, it's STILL going to get dark at 4 in the afternoon. The winter soltice occurs near December 21st, which is outside of the adjusted window. This won't make any difference in the deep of winter.
The correct answer is "I was too busy watching the traffic around me to glance at the speedometer. That would have involved taking my eyes off the road."
My best advice for dealing with the police when you are pulled over is to MAKE NO EXCUSES. That doesn't mean you have to admit to anything, but it does mean that you shouldn't make up stupid shit to try to explain away what you were doing. Simply saying "I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention I guess," will usually disarm the cop (they aren't used to hearing honesty) and you might even make out with a warning instead of a ticket.
You're a government bitch.
Uhh.. The cosine error is always in the police's favor. The maximum speed they can read is a straight-on reading. Anything read from the side is an underestimate of your true speed.
Except that this moves the time window to include more daylight hours, so you don't need to have your lights on. At least that is the theory.
Personally, I think the clocks should stay constant, and society should shift its working hours according to the season. As winter approaches, people start going to work earlier, so they can come home in the daylight hours. Of course, that's NEVER going to happen.
They never said the content was inserted, they said the game was modified, which is true.
Oh, come OFF it. That passage is all but incomprehensible gobbledegook for anybody who isn't a programmer. "Altering the game's source code" sounds an awful like inserting the entire thing into the game. This is nothing but atrocious doublespeak which any politician would be proud of.
So no, TECHNICALLY they did not claim the hacker did it, but the message was carefully worded to give that impression to the average person. But in court, they can weasle out of the statement by explaining that setting bits in the binary is what they meant by "altering the source code."
It's WEASEL WORDING.
Clearly not, because if getting smaller were a disadvantage, it wouldn't be happening. What you mean is that if human fishing was removed from the picture, the fish might no longer be adapted to their environment. Well, yes. But if they could adapt in such a short time to the pressures of modern fishing, chances are they can adapt back to a more "natural" state in a comparable amount of time.
Whoops. I read "fisheries" as "fish" for some reason :-)
I'm sure people have thought of it before, but they haven't done it because it's clear that it can't work unless it's given an infinite context of moves. Otherwise, you can set the computer up to fail by creating a situation near the beginning of the midgame and then playing out a line that traps the computer as soon as it runs out of context.
It is also limited to what it learns by "observing" other games. So it can never move creatively or unexpectedly.
It's an interesting thing to play with, to be sure, but it's never going to rise to the level of other systems.
You need to add -lfl to the link line (probably in LDFLAGS).
RSS is not a push technology.
I don't understand your use of "suffered." The fish seem to be evolving to be able to evade the fishing nets. Instead of ending up on people's dinner plates, they are still swimming in the sea. Don't you see this is a good example of a species evolving to fit its changing environment?
As people, we look at the circumstances and say "It's a shame things are changing," but that's just our humanity speaking. One of the things the Buddha got right was that human suffering derives from a fear of change. But I'm 99.9% certain that the fish don't care whatsoever (or suffer, for that matter).
I agree. I am only raising an objection to the terminology.
But it takes time for fish to grow that large -- they aren't born that way. Surely they must have a chance to reproduce in their earlier years, before they grow to a more enticing size? This theory has a slight ring of truth to it, but I don't think it's cut and dry.
I have to strongly object to your terminology. Evolution is not an entity or process which can be "forced" into anything. It is simply an observation about what happens in the world.
"Selective pressure" is an incredibly loaded term which anthropomorphizes what's really happening. In this case, what is happening with the elephants is that the ones with tusks are being killed off, and the ones without tusks are not (and it's not any more complicated than that). There is nothing putting "pressure" on the elephants to lose their tusks. The mutations are random and happen without respect to environmental changes. It is the environment which makes some of these mutations more or less favorable but it is not the cause of those mutations.
Suppose you wanted to "force" humans to evolve gills, like fish. Suppose that you did this by rounding up everybody who did not have gills, and drowning them. Do you think this procedure has any chance in hell of causing humans to start growing gills? The reason why not, is that the sort of mutation that could cause that is extremely complex and almost infinitely unlikely. But in the case of the elephants, the tuskless phenotype was present even before the advent of modern hunting.
Evolution has no will, no path, no agenda, no nothing. It can't be forced, pressured, coerced, etc.
No. What they have is an irrevocable license to use and sublicense the work. They don't own it, but they have all the same rights as the author to profit from it.
Congratulations, Fox! You are now the owners of the largest softcore kiddy-porn site on the Internet!
What a sparkling endorsement of the law -- "Our law is so ridden with bullshit, even intelligent people can't comprehend it!" What's your point again?
Are you actually suggesting that the majority of us read the article?
So on the one hand, you want to allow people to possess guns, and only punish them if they use those guns to violate others rights. Yet on the other hand, you want to punish people merely for DRIVING while intoxicated, even if they cause no harm.
In one case you advocate punishment only if there is a bad outcome. In the other, you want punishment for even the possibility of a bad outcome. Which way do you want it? You're being inconsistent.
Why use some big, impersonal job aggregator, never even meeting the programmer in person, when you could just go down to a coffee shop and meet with a friend-of-a-friend? Keep the money local, and help build "the network." The network is how those who know what they are doing leverage the abilities of other skilled people. Massive aggregator sites break down the network and overly corporatize it, leading to impersonal interactions and lack of accountability.
The chlorine produced would be no threat to the ozone layer. Chlorine is too reactive to survive in elemental form all the way up to the ozone layer. The entire reason why CFCs were so destructive is because they were so stable they were able to survive all the way to the upper reaches of the atmosphere, where they were finally broken down by UV and released the chlorine they carried. (This process is actually still continuing, even though CFCs have been banned for many years. That's how stable these compounds are.)
Elemental chlorine is not exactly a fun-time gas but it's not going to harm the ozone layer.