It mirrors the requirement that immigrants carry papers, but that's not the issue. The part that's problematic is that this law allows cops to ask anyone that they interact with to show their papers, whether they are required to have them or not.
The behavior was speeding, your driver's license is insufficient because it doesn't certify your citizenship, you are under arrest for being an illegal immigrant despite the fact that you're a citizen.
While I agree the legislation shouldn't go through, it would only stop kids from buying the games. It wouldn't be illegal for them to play the games if their parents were with them when they bought them.
There's a big difference between an R-rated movie and an M-rated game. The movie is watched on the spot, taking up ~2hrs of time. The game on the other hand has to be played somewhere, making it far more difficult for kids to hide. As for returning it, what does it matter, the kid spent their own money on it knowing what would happen if it were found.
I don't even think you can return an open game. Certainly not a PC game. So, as a parent, what do you do?
Parent 1: "This disc doesn't work, I'd like to exchange it for another copy of the same game." Parent 2 (or friend if single parent): "I'd like to return this unopened game."
As for the law I don't see it having any real positive effect. If the kids can afford to buy the games now, they're going to be able to find a way to buy them later. If the parents care about the ratings of the games their kids are playing, they need to check for themselves.
They don't have to track your particular transfer, they can track general trends. Game 1 had x seeds two weeks after release, game 2 had 3x seeds, significantly more people are downloading game 2.
Easy to target but at the moment I don't think there are any ABMs capable of reaching mach ~30. (which is about how fast it would have to be able to go to do what they say it can)
They can't tell how many people are pirating their game, but they can tell how many are downloading it relative to how many are downloading other games they've made.
I think his point was more it's not 1984ish unless its government. Which is true from some standpoints but ignores the similarities that the GP was referring to.
In order to do that someone will have to start a new religion based on South Park. Actually, if someone did that it might actually be illegal to censor it...
They do, in Washington, you know, the place the article is about... The issue is that when they were asked for it for the court proceedings they didn't provide them.
I would guess that the separation would be between adsense and everything else resulting in google selling space on its pages to adsense to use. This would make it more certain that the search results weren't being affected by the advertisements. (which seems to be the allegation)
It's not impossible without government backing. Develop a massive market share then tell consumers that if they dabble in the competition you'll stop doing business with them.
Whether they help is irrelevant, they have not been proven to help. So they are advertised in a way that suggests that they might help without saying it outright.
Your comment and your sig are somewhat contradictory.
Anyway, it wasn't a serious suggestion, more an idea of poetic justice if they took away the cops and firefighters.
America is not and has never been Democratic, we are a Republic and if there isn't anyone to vote for that supports your agenda you're pretty much out of luck. (unless you have the resources to get yourself elected or get someone to support your agenda)
Well, I didn't really mean that it always stay exactly the same as it is now, I just ccouldn't figure out how to phrase it properly. What I mean is that something being low priority wouldn't decrease the bandwidth it gets, just when it gets it.
Yes, yes he did, if the COO is supposed to get those passwords the password policy should be changed to allow it. Even if the COO were supposed to get those passwords, they should be given out in person and in private, not over the phone with HR and cops listening.
Slashdot Mirror
It mirrors the requirement that immigrants carry papers, but that's not the issue. The part that's problematic is that this law allows cops to ask anyone that they interact with to show their papers, whether they are required to have them or not.
Your driver's license and state ID don't qualify.
The behavior was speeding, your driver's license is insufficient because it doesn't certify your citizenship, you are under arrest for being an illegal immigrant despite the fact that you're a citizen.
The article kind of glosses over it, but they took those away too.
Only need the receipt the first time, the second time you tell them you don't have the receipt but since its unopened they'll take it anyway.
While I agree the legislation shouldn't go through, it would only stop kids from buying the games. It wouldn't be illegal for them to play the games if their parents were with them when they bought them.
There's a big difference between an R-rated movie and an M-rated game. The movie is watched on the spot, taking up ~2hrs of time. The game on the other hand has to be played somewhere, making it far more difficult for kids to hide. As for returning it, what does it matter, the kid spent their own money on it knowing what would happen if it were found.
I don't even think you can return an open game. Certainly not a PC game. So, as a parent, what do you do?
Parent 1: "This disc doesn't work, I'd like to exchange it for another copy of the same game."
Parent 2 (or friend if single parent): "I'd like to return this unopened game."
As for the law I don't see it having any real positive effect. If the kids can afford to buy the games now, they're going to be able to find a way to buy them later. If the parents care about the ratings of the games their kids are playing, they need to check for themselves.
Gambling isn't a weakness, addiction to it is.
They don't have to track your particular transfer, they can track general trends. Game 1 had x seeds two weeks after release, game 2 had 3x seeds, significantly more people are downloading game 2.
Easy to target but at the moment I don't think there are any ABMs capable of reaching mach ~30. (which is about how fast it would have to be able to go to do what they say it can)
They can't tell how many people are pirating their game, but they can tell how many are downloading it relative to how many are downloading other games they've made.
Or the new company could just sell copies of the game, once the game is that old you don't need to worry so much about protecting it.
I think his point was more it's not 1984ish unless its government. Which is true from some standpoints but ignores the similarities that the GP was referring to.
In order to do that someone will have to start a new religion based on South Park. Actually, if someone did that it might actually be illegal to censor it...
They do, in Washington, you know, the place the article is about... The issue is that when they were asked for it for the court proceedings they didn't provide them.
I would guess that the separation would be between adsense and everything else resulting in google selling space on its pages to adsense to use. This would make it more certain that the search results weren't being affected by the advertisements. (which seems to be the allegation)
It's not impossible without government backing. Develop a massive market share then tell consumers that if they dabble in the competition you'll stop doing business with them.
Whether they help is irrelevant, they have not been proven to help. So they are advertised in a way that suggests that they might help without saying it outright.
Your comment and your sig are somewhat contradictory.
Anyway, it wasn't a serious suggestion, more an idea of poetic justice if they took away the cops and firefighters.
America is not and has never been Democratic, we are a Republic and if there isn't anyone to vote for that supports your agenda you're pretty much out of luck. (unless you have the resources to get yourself elected or get someone to support your agenda)
Well, I didn't really mean that it always stay exactly the same as it is now, I just ccouldn't figure out how to phrase it properly. What I mean is that something being low priority wouldn't decrease the bandwidth it gets, just when it gets it.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is only the theoretical requirement, people are unlikely to vote not guilty if they think the defendant is guilty.
You know, just about anyone has the power to put you in jail for a day, just takes a bit of work and some creative story telling.
Yes, yes he did, if the COO is supposed to get those passwords the password policy should be changed to allow it. Even if the COO were supposed to get those passwords, they should be given out in person and in private, not over the phone with HR and cops listening.
Only if the city's policies require him to do so.